{Ht ! -f p‘ a 1; l". ’............"-*... 1'1-3 - 1 ’I‘ 1b. 1' J This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Self-Perceptions, Attributions, and Expectations of Popular, Average, Neglected, and Rejected Children with Respect to Hypothetical Social Situations presented by Julie Ann Juenemann has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Dh,D, . Psychology degree in £44 / 1W! Major professor muggy. /7f5 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ‘Itlllllllllllflllllfillllllllllfllll L MSU 3 1293 01088 7689 RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to “BRAmgs remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES will be charged if‘book is returned after the date ___ stamped below. will, I: 33%;: THE SELF-PERCEPTIONS, ATTRIBUTIONS, AND EXPECTATIONS . OF POPULAR, AVERAGE, NEGLECTED, AND REJECTED CHILDREN WITH RESPECT TO HYPOTHETICAL SOCIAL SITUATIONS BY Julie Ann Juenemann A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1985 ABSTRACT THE SELF-PERCEPTIONS, ATTRIBUTIONS, AND EXPECTATIONS OF POPULAR, AVERAGE, NEGLECTED, AND REJECTED CHILDREN WITH RESPECT TO HYPOTHETICAL SOCIAL SITUATIONS By Julie Ann Juenemann This study explored whether or not the self-perceptions, attributions, and expectations of children regarding hypothetical social situations would vary according to their sociometric status, age, and sex. Four sociometric groups of children--popular, average, neglected, and rejected--were selected as subjects. Each sociometric group contained an equal number of boys and girls attending the fourth and seventh grades (fiqa 96). Children's self-perceptions, attributions, and expectations with respect to hypothetical social situations were examined using both forced-choice questionnaire and interview formats. The results of this study indicated that children with positive sociometric status (popular and average children) had greater social and cognitive perceived competence and displayed less of a social desirability bias than children with negative sociometric status (neglected and rejected children). Boys had greater social and physical perceived competence and greater perceived general self-worth than did girls. Boys and girls with positive sociometric status differed in perceived aggressiveness, whereas boys and girls with negative sociometric status did not. Neglected children did not perceive themselves as being more passive than other children, nor did rejected children perceive themselves as being more aggressive than other children. Boys attributed positive outcomes to ability more than did girls. Younger children displayed greater external locus of control than did older children. Groups of children did not differ in their efficacy expectations, but rejected children displayed a consistent pattern of greater outcome expectations than neglected children. Younger children's outcome expectations were greater than those of older children, and fourth-grade rejected children displayed the greatest outcome expectations of any group. Older children with negative sociometric status discussed relationship-enhancing concepts significantly more than younger children with negative sociometric status, whereas no significant difference in concern with relationship-enhancing concepts was found between older and younger children with positive sociometric status. The implications of this study's results for social skills training programs were discussed. To Betty, for accepting me for what I am, and for never-ending love To Guy, for believing that I could accomplish anything I wanted to, and for teaching me the importance of giving to others To Nancy, for being the rainbow after the storm, and for making us all a family again and To Kurt, the love of my life, who held my hand through it all ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation simply would not have been possible without the help of a number of people, to whom I am deeply indebted. First, I wish to thank the students, parents, teachers, and administrators of the participating schools, for their cooperation in this research. My thanks go to the Crescentwood Elementary School (Mrs. Sharon Eccles, Principal), the Warrendale Elementary School (Mr. Ray Rickert, Principal), and the Woodland Elementary School (Mr. William Hackett, Principal), all of the East Detroit Public School System, East Detroit, Michigan; and to the South Lake Middle School (Mr. Richard Gates, Principal) of the South Lake School System, St. Clair Shores, Michigan. I am especially grateful to Dr. Emil Sigaretti, Assistant Superintendent of the East Detroit Public School System, and to Dr. Joseph White, Assistant Superintendent of the South Lake School System, for their roles in facilitating their systems' participation in this project. Second, I would like to express my gratitude to those persons who helped to conduct the study and code data: to undergraduates Cloria Gonzalez-Maurer and Jackie Reese; to graduate students Bill Bukowski, Tom Packard, and Fred iii Rogosch; and to family members Guy Juenemann, Jeff Juenemann, Linda Juenemann, Nancy Juenemann, and Kurt Stanley. I would particularly like to thank Judy Meister for her invaluable assistance in completing this portion of the research. Many thanks to Annette McGarey, for her outstanding secretarial contribution, and to Gordon Wood and Roger Halley for their understanding with regard to my computer expenses. I would like to express my appreciation to Wade Horn, Betty Seagull, and Ellen Strommen for serving as members of my dissertation committee. In addition, I would like to make special mention of several Michigan State University faculty members who, while not on my dissertation committee, have been my role models of what it means to be a clinical psychologist: my first mentor Helen Benedict, Geb Blom, Lucy Rau Ferguson, and Martha Karson. Thanks, also, to my fellow graduate students at Michigan State for their support and friendship, with particular gratitude to Lisa Blank, Esther Dienstag, and Judy Meister. My very special thanks are reserved for Andy Newcomb, my graduate advisor, dissertation committee chairperson, and friend. I treasure what he has taught me, and I thank him for his guidance, wisdom, patience, and integrity. Finally, I owe special thanks to my family and friends for the years of love and support they have given me, particularly to my wonderful parents, Betty, Guy, and Nancy. iv I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Kurt Stanley, for helping me to realize my dream of becoming a clinical psychologist, and for his encouragement, understanding, and love. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................................... viii INTRODUCTION........ ................ . .................. l Self-Perceptions .......... . ........................ 4 Attributions ....................................... 6 Expectations...... ........ . ............. ........... 8 Sociometric Groups ................................. 9 Developmental Levels.. ......... ............... ..... 12 Summary and Hypotheses ............................. 14 METHOD ................................................. 19 Subjects ...................... . .................... 19 Procedure..... ..... ........ ............. . .......... 22 Measures .......................................... 26 Sociometric Questionnaire. ........... ......... 26 Class Play Inventory .......................... 27 Perceived Competence Scale for Children.. ..... 29 Children' s Assertive Behavior Scale ........... 31 Efficacy Expectations Scale ......... . ......... 33 Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions............... ..... . ..... . ....... 37 Attributions Rating Scale ..................... 4O Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions.................... .............. 46 Nowicki- Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children ............................ 50 Young Children's Social Desirability Scale. 52 Self— Statement Instrument.. ................. 53 RESULTS........................ ...... .................. 65 Class Play Inventory ..... . .... .................. 66 Perceived Competence Scale for Children ............ 69 Children' s Assertive Behavior Scale. ...... ...... 70 Efficacy Expectations Scale ....................... 72 Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions ..... 73 Attributions Rating Scale ......................... 75 Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions ..... 75 Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children... ...... ................... ...... 79 Young Children's Social Desirability Scale.. ...... 80 Self- Statement Instrument .......................... 81 Locus of Control Codes .......... .....;. ...... . 81 Self-perception questions ................ 81 vi Attribution questions.. ..... . ..... . ... 82 Outcome expectation questions............ 82 Response Type Codes.. ......................... 82 Self-perception questions........ ........ 82 Attribution questions. ....... ...... ..... . 85 Outcome expectation questions............ 85 Summary of Results................................. 86 DISCUSSION............................................. 88 Increasing Knowledge about Children's Metacognitions................................ 88 Incorporation of Metacognitive Intervention into Social Skills Training Programs............... 94 Increasing the Specificity of Social Skills Training Programs............................. 96 Future Directions................... ....... . . . . 100 APPENDICES................. .............. ..... ......... 104 Appendix A. Letter to Parents and Permission Slip.. 104 Appendix B. Assent Form for Children............... 107 Appendix C. Sociometric Questionnaire.............. 108 Appendix D. Class Play Inventory................... 109 Appendix E. Perceived Competence Scale for Children. .......... ......... ...... ... 111 Appendix F. Children's Assertive Behavior Scale. 116 Appendix G. Efficacy Expectations Scale. ......... 122 Appendix H. Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions ..... ................... ..... .. 126 Appendix I. Attributions Rating Scale....... ....... 129 Appendix J. Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions...................... ........ . 134 Appendix K. Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children. .................. . 140 Appendix L. Young Children's Social Desirability Scale......................................... 143 Appendix M. Self-Statement Instrument...... ....... . 145 .Appendix N. Coding Scheme and Coding Scheme Summary Sheet for Self-Statement Instrument... 147 Appendix 0. Generalizability Coefficients for the Self-Statement Locus of Control and Response Type Codes...................... ..... 167 Appendix P. Categorical Coding Schemes....... ...... 170 Appendix Q. Generalizability Coefficients for the Categorical Coding Schemes... ............. 176 BIBLIOGRAPHY... ........ ........ ..... ... ....... ........ 177 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Instruments Administered............................ 23 2. Efficacy Expectations Scale Factor Loadings ...... ... 36 3. Attributions Rating Scale Factor Loadings: Ability.. 44 4. Attributions Rating Scale Factor Loadings: Effort... 45 5. Attributions Rating Scale Factor Loadings: Other.... 45 6. Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions Factor Loadings................................. 49 7. Instruments and Factors ......... ................ 61 8. Categorical Coding Schemes for the Self— Statement Instrument...................................... 63 9. Mean Factor Scores for the Efficacy Expectations Scale.............. ..... ........................ 73 10. Mean Factor Scores for the Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions ...... ................. 77 11. Mean Factor Scores for the Self-Perception Response Type Codes............................. 83 viii INTRODUCTION In recent years, the significance of metacognitive knowledge in the mediation of behavior has begun to be recognized. Butler and Meichenbaum (1981) defined metacognitive knowledge as: the person's awareness of the variables that affect the efficient use of cognitive skills, including knowledge about cognitive rules, awareness of one's own cognitive abilities, and active monitoring and regulation of cognitive processes....What we are dealing with in this level of analysis, then, is not the specific knowledge of processes that individuals may apply directly to the solution of problems, but with the higher-order variables that affect how (and whether) they will solve problems. (p. 219) Three categories of metacognitive knowledge have been postulated (Flavell, 1981a, 1981b). These are described by Butler and Meichenbaum (1981) as "a complex set of person (i.e., self-appraisal of abilities, attribution of outcome), task (perception of task difficulty and purpose), and strategy (strategy knowledge, and recognition of the need to apply strategies) variables" (p. 219). Of particular concern in the present study was metacognitive knowledge related to persons, and more specifically the l 2 subset of metacognitive knowledge pertaining to the self. To date, little attention has been focused on the relationship between self metacognitive knowledge and interpersonal behavior. However, preliminary research has provided strong indications that metacognitive knowledge related to the self may play a major role in the mediation of interpersonal behavior in adults. Schwartz and Gottman (1976) compared the behavior of low-, moderate-, and high-assertive adult subjects on a number of variables. They found that low-assertive subjects did not differ from moderate- and high-assertive subjects in knowledge of a competent response or in ability to model an assertive reaponse. Low-assertive subjects differed from moderate- and high-assertive subjects in the amount of assertiveness they displayed when role-playing their typical responses to confrontational situations, and reported a greater number of negative and fewer positive self-statements following completion of the aforementioned tasks than did moderate- or high-assertive subjects. Schwartz and Gottman concluded that nonassertiveness in low-assertive subjects was most likely to be related to self-statements, and suggested that "some type of cognitive restructuring (Ellis & Harper, 1961) or manipulation of cognitive self-statements (Meichenbaum, 1972) may be an appropriate form of treatment for nonassertiveness" (p. 919). Pitcher and Meikle (1980) and Bruch (1981) found patterns of self-statements which replicated Schwartz and Gottman's (1976) results. 3 Meijers (personal communication cited by Meichenbaum, 1977) provided preliminary evidence that self metacognitive knowledge may also play a major role in the mediation of interpersonal behavior in children. Meijers performed a retrospective study of college students who perceived themselves as being socially isolated when they were children. In interviews, the subjects revealed that: as socially isolated, withdrawn children they used to watch the most popular child in class, read books on being more outgoing and assertive, often practiced in front of the mirror, but would not engage in more socially outgoing behaviors because "It would not be 'I would be doing it for my mother or teacher", etc. (p. 57) Meijers also studied the reactions of ten-year-old socially isolated and non-isolated subjects to TAT-type slides of children interacting. This research confirmed the role of negative self-statements in mediating the behavior of socially isolated children. The ways in which metacognitive knowledge related to the self is relevant to peer relationships in children was explored in the present study. Three types of self metacognitive knowledge were examined: (a) self-perceptions, (b) attributions, and (c) expectations. Self-perceptions are metacognitions which may occur at any time and may influence children's interpersonal relationships before, during and after the occurrence of social interactions. The relationship of expectations and 4 attributions to an act (e.g., a social interaction) was delineated by Hollon and Kendall (1981) as follows: those cognitions prior to a given act that are most relevant to differential probabilities of action are expectations; either regarding the probabilities that a given behavior can be emitted, or the differential probabilities for different outcomes contingent on the emission or failure to emit that behavior. Cognitions of greatest interest after an act are likely to be attributional in nature, explanations for why a given action occurred or why a given outcome occurred. (p. 321 In the following sections, the specific self-perceptions, attributions, and expectations to be explored in the present study will be delineated. Considerations contributing to the selection these aspects of self metacognitive knowledge for research purposes will be presented. Following a discussion of the self metacognitive variables of interest, an explanation of the factors which were considered when selecting subject groups (sociometric status and developmental level) will be given. Self-Perceptions Children's self-perceptions may be one type of self metacognitive knowledge which plays a major role in the mediation of peer relationships. Two kinds of self-perception were examined here: (a) perceived competence, and (b) perceived assertiveness. 5 Perceived competence, especially perceived social competence, may contribute to successful interpersonal relationships in a variety of ways. Children with positive social self-perceptions may be more likely to initiate interactions with peers and may be more approachable than children with negative social self-perceptions; children with negative social self-perceptions may be reluctant to initiate interactions with peers and may elicit peer rejection (Fine, 1981; Puttalez & Gottman, 1981). Children who perceive themselves as competent in a social situation may interact more competently with peers than children who perceive themselves as incompetent. Children who receive both social skills training and intervention which enhances their self-images as competent in social situations may exhibit greater improvement following treatment than children who receive only social skills training. A number of researchers (Bandura, 1977; Harter, 1978, 1981; White, 1959) have hypothesized that perceived competence plays a major role in competence motivation. Research focusing on' other areas of behavior, such as test anxiety (Meichenbaum & Butler, 1980) and sports participation (Roberts, Kleiber & Duda, 1981), supports the importance of perceived competence to interpersonal behavior. Perceived assertiveness may also have an impact on children's interpersonal relationships. Children who perceive themselves to be assertive rather than passive or aggressive may tend to act assertively with peers; children 6 who develop an assertive self-perception in the course of social skills training may show greater treatment effects than children who do not develop this self-perception. Research supporting this hypothesis is provided by Alden and Cappe (1981), who found that nonassertive adult subjects did not differ from assertive subjects in ability to respond to a hypothetical situation as assertively as possible, but rated themselves as less assertive than their assertive counterparts. Attributions Children's attributions are a second type of self metacognitive knowledge which may be of major importance in mediating peer relationships. One dimension of children's attributions which may contribute to their successfulness in peer relationships is the internal/external dimension. Children who attribute successfulness in social situations 'to internal (self) sources may behave differently and utilize social skills training programs more successfully than children who attribute outcomes in social situations to external sources (e.g., other person, fate, or luck). This hypothesis is supported by Ames, Ames, and Garrison's (1977) findings that children of high social status attributed positive outcomes internally and negative outcomes externally, while children of low social status made the opposite attributions. 7 A second dimension of children's attributions which may influence their peer relationships is that of effort/ability. Children who attribute outcomes in social situations to effort may behave differently and utilize social skills training programs more successfully than children who attribute outcomes in social situations to ability. According to Seligman's (1975) learned helplessness theory, a child who learns not to attribute outcome to effort will no longer try to succeed, irregardless of the situation, and will have difficulty learning to make an effort to succeed in situations where effort would lead to success. Differential effects of effort and ability attributions have been found in studies by Diener and Dweck (1978), Dweck (1975), and Dweck and Reppucci (1973). In these studies, children who attributed success and failure to effort rather than ability demonstrated greater persistence in effort following failure. Teaching children to attribute outcomes to effort was found to be a successful method of training children to deal with failure. In the area of interpersonal relations, Goetz and Dweck (1980) found that children who attributed peer rejection to personal incompetence (ability) were note severely disrupted in their attempts to obtain peer approval following rejection than were other children. 8 Expectations Children's expectations constitute a third type of self metacognitive knowledge which may be fundamental in the mediation of peer relationships. Two kinds of expectations were examined in this study: (a) outcome expectations, and (b) efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977). Outcome expectations were defined by Bandura as "a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes" (p. 193), while efficacy expectations were 1 '1 ‘4 defined to he "the: conviction that am; can $13.13;; Eal, 1 execute tie behavior required to produce the outcomes" (p. 193). Children who expect a behavior to result in a successful social interaction will be more likely to engage in that behavior than to engage in a behavior which they expect to result in an unsuccessful social interaction. Children who expect to be able to successfully execute a behavior will be more likely to engage in that behavior than children who do not expect to be able to successfully execute the behavior. Negative outcome and efficacy expectations could result in a self-fulfilling prophecy if a child avoids a situation for which he has negative expectations and thereby has no Opportunity to disconfirm his negative expectations, or perceives an ambiguous situation in a negative light to conform with his negative expectations (Rogosch, 1982), or acts according to his expettations in such a way that he evokes a negative 9 response from another person (Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). Bandura hypothesized that expectancy variables influence choice of activity, amount of effort and persistence, thought processes and emotional reactions. Research supports the relationship between eXpectations and social behavior. Fiedler and Beach (1978) found that women's expectations about behavioral consequences were more closely related to their level of assertiveness than was their knowledge about behavioral consequences. Mischel, Ebbesen and Zeiss (1975) found that the effects of expectancy were greater than the effects of experience. High assertives expected more favorable consequences than low assertives, according to a study by Eisler, Frederiksen and Peterson (1978). Asher and Renshaw (1981) found that O'Connor's (1969) social skills training progran employing a training film with narration was more effective than films without narration or films without the type of narration provided by O'Connor. O'Connor's narration included both instructions on how to interact with others for positive outcomes and descriptions of positive outcomes of interacting with others, which may have raised the viewers' outcome expectations. Sociometric Groups Next, the discussion will focus upon the basis for selection of the subject groups which were studied. 10 Sociometric status was selected as the major subject clasSification of interest because of it's relevance to childhood psychopathology. Studies such as those of Asher, Oden, and Gottman (1977), Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, and Trost (1973), and Roff, Sells, and Golden (1972) have demonstrated that childhood peer relationships are significantly related to the psychological adjustment of children, and predictive of their future outcomes and mental health. Sociometric status has often been employed to select children for treatment programs and to assess the effectiveness of treatment (Gottman, Gonso, & Schuler, 1976; Ladd, 1981; Oden & Asher, 1977). Four sociometric status groups of children--popular, average, neglected, and rejected children--were selected as subject groups for the present study. In early studies comparing children of different sociometric status, it was common for researchers to divide children into three groups of high, average, and low social status children (Dunnington, 1957; Lemann & Solomon, 1952). More recently, researchers have become aware of the necessity of distinguishing between two types of low social status children: (a) neglected children, who are ignored by peers, and (b) rejected children, who are actively disliked by peers. Neglected and rejected children have been found to be behaviorally distinct groups of children by many researchers (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; . 11 'Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982; Gottman, 1977; Gronlund & Anderson, 1957). Neglected children have been described by teachers and peers as shy, withdrawn, and less socially interactive than other children, whereas rejected children have been described as aggressive, disruptive, antisocial, and socially inapprOpriate (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Gronlund & Anderson, 1957). Neglected and rejected children may have different levels of risk for future maladaptive outcomes and may need different types of intervention (Asher, Markell, & Hymel, 1981; Coie & Dodge, 1983; Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Michael, Morris, & Soroker, 1957; Morris, Soroker, & Burris, 1954). Green and Forehand (1980) stated that "failure to differentiate between these two groups of children will only result in continued confusion regarding identification and possible treatment approaches for each type of child" (p. 156). Some researchers have also included a fifth group of children in their studies, controversial children, who are frequently nominated on sociometric instruments as both "best-liked" and "least-liked". This group of children was not included in the present study because of the controversy surrounding the usefulness of this classification (Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983). 12 Developmental Levels Developmental variations were incorporated into this study in order to determine whether or not different types of self metacognitive knowledge would be more strongly. associated with children's sociometric status at one develoPmental level than another. Therefore, children at different grade levels were selected as subjects for the study. Children in the fourth and seventh grades were selected as subjects for several reasons. First, children at these grade levels are hypothesized to be capable of reasoning at two different cognitive levels. According to Piaget (1952), most fourth-grade children should be functioning in Piaget's stage of concrete operations, whereas seventh-grade children are attaining the capacity for formal operational reasoning, as evidenced by their development in the areas of metacognition, introspection, and logical and abstract thinking. Second, many researchers feel that children at these grade levels would be at different stages in the development of self-concept and peer relations. For example, Erikson's (1968) work would support the idea that most children in fourth grade would be dealing with the crisis of industry versus inferiority, in which relationships in the school and neighborhood are of central importance, while most children in seventh grade would be dealing with the crisis of identityversus role diffusion, in which peer groups and 13 outgroups are of primary importance. Sullivan {1953) described children of fourth-grade age as being primarily concerned with same-sex chum relationships, while children in seventh grade are beginning to experience a preadolescent and early adolescent "collision between intimacy needs and lust" (p. 268). Third, fourth grade was selected as the minimum grade level at which children would participate in the study because children seem to have constructed a concept of their general self-worth at approximately age eight, in addition to possessing the ability to make judgements about self-competence in different areas (Harter, 1978, 1983). In addition, Kagan, Hans, Markowitz, LOpez, and Sigal (1982) have found that children as young as third-graders are able to provide self-reports which are valid when compared to teacher and peer perceptions. (Children typically attend third grade at age eight; fourth grade was selected as the minimum_ grade level for participation to allow for slight developmental differences.) Fourth, the fourth and seventh grades were relatively stable periods with regard to children's transitions through the school systems which participated in the study. The fourth graders would be attending elementary school for an additional year following the study, whereas the seventh graders were in the midst of their middle school experience, having attended the school for one year and having an additional year to attend the school prior to their transition to high 14 school. Therefore, the results of the study should not reflect the confusion in self-concept previously found to exist among seventh graders in systems where seventh grade is the first year of junior high school (Connell, 1980; Harter, 1982). Summary and Hypotheses The present study explored three types of metacognitive knowledge related to the self, which were hypothesized to have an association with children's peer relationships. The categories which were explored included: (a) children's self-perceptions of competence and assertiveness, (b) children's attributions about social interaction outcomes, and (c) children's efficacy and outcome expectations. These components were examined for four sociometric groups of boys and girls--popular, average, neglected and rejected children-~at two developmental levels--fourth and seventh grades. Children's metacognitions were explored across three types of social situations hypothesized to be relevant to friendship (Asher & Renshaw, l98l)--initiation of acquaintanceships and friendships, maintenance of acquaintanceships and friendships, and conflict related to acquaintanceships and friendships. Three major research questions were addressed: 15 (1) Do the self-perceptions of children vary as a function of their sociometric status, grade level, and sex?' (a) Does their perceived competence vary? (b) Does their perceived assertiveness vary? (2) Are there differences in children's causal attributions about social outcomes which are related to their sociometric status, grade level, and sex? (a) Do they differ in their internal versus external attributions? (b) Do they differ in their ability versus effort attributions? (3) Do children of different sociometric status, grade level, and sex vary in their expectations for social interactions? (a) Do their efficacy expectations vary? (b) Do their outcome expectations vary? The hypotheses which were proposed in relation to children's self-related metacognitions will be presented next. Many of the following hypotheses about the self-perceptions, attributions, and expectations of children in the different sociometric groups were based on behavioral observations of children's social interactions from a variety of studies. Although the relationship between cognition and behavior has only been found to be weakly positive, and although behavior is often more highly related to variables such as situations, group norms, social constraints and social desirability than to cognitions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), behavioral observations remain one of the best available bases for 16 making predictions about children's self-related metacognitions. In order to maximize the relationship between children's self metacognitions and behavioral observations, the measures used in this study were specific to children's social relationships and were often microscopic, as Opposed to macroscopic, in nature (the more specific the measures, the stronger the relationship between cognitions and behaviors). It should also be noted that it is easier to predict cognitions from behaviors than to predict behaviors from cognitions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In the area of self-perception, it was hypothesized that children whose sociometric status was pOpular or average would have greater perceived competence than neglected or rejected children, especially in the areas of perceived social competence (Kurdek & Krile, 1982; Thompson, 1981) and perceived cognitive competence (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984; Glick, 1972; Green, Forehand, Beck, & Vost, 1980; Roff, Sells, & Golden, 1972). POpular and average children were also hypothesized to perceive themselves most highly on the dimension of assertiveness, while neglected children should perceive themselves most highly on the dimension of submissiveness and rejected children should perceive themselves most highly on the dimension of aggressiveness, in accordance with the behavioral observations of Coie and Kupersmidt (1983), Dodge (1983), 'Dodge, Coie, and Brakke (1982), and Hartup, Glazer, and l7 Charlesworth (1967), as well as the peer descriptions of Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982), Gronlund and Anderson (1957), and Lesser (1959). In relation to children's attributions, it was predicted that popular and average children would be more likely than neglected and rejected children to attribute successful and unsuccessful outcomes to effort rather than ability, attribute Successful outcomes to internal rather than external causes, and attribute unsuccessful outcomes to external rather than internal causes (Ames, Ames, & Garrison, 1977; Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Goetz & Dweck, 1980). As for children's expectations, it was hypothesized that popular and average children would have greater efficacy expectations for behaviors thought to contribute to successful peer relationships than neglected and rejected children. Popular and average children should have the greatest outcome expectations for assertive behaviors, while neglected children should have the greatest outcome expectations for submissive behaviors and rejected children should have the greatest outcome expectations for aggressive behaviors. It was hypothesized that few significant differences would be found between children of different grade levels who were members of the same sociometric group. Perceived social competence was not expected to vary with grade level, in accordance with the results of Harter (1982) and 18 Kurdek and Krile (1982). Older neglected children were expected to be more similar to children with positive sociometric status in their self-related metacognitions than were younger neglected children, whereas older rejected children were expected to be no more similar to children with positive sociometric status in their self-related metacognitions than were younger rejected children (Asher, Markell, & Hymel, 1981; Coie & Dodge, 1983; Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Michael, Morris, & Soroker, 1957; Morris, Soroker, & Burris, 1954; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1984; Rogosch, 1982). No differences were-hypothesized to exist in the perceived social competence of boys and girls (Kurdek & Krile, 1982). It was predicted that boys would perceive themselves as being more aggressive than would girls and would have greater efficacy and outcome expectations for aggressive actions than would girls, in accordance with their aggresSiveness in actual situations (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Richardson, Bernstein, & Taylor, 1979). METHOD Subjects The initial sample consisted of 246 children attending the fourth and seventh grades in two school districts of suburban Detroit. The fourth graders (75 boys, 54 girls) attended one of three elementary schools located in the East Detroit Public School System: Crescentwood, Warrendale, or Woodland Elementary School. There were two fourth grade classes in each of these elementary schools. The seventh graders (52 boys, 65 girls) attended South Lake Middle School, located in the South Lake Public School System. The two school districts were located adjacent to one another, and were similar in the socioeconomic composition of their student populations. In order to recruit subjects for participation in the study, the administrators of the aforementioned school districts and faculty members of the specified schools were contacted, and their cooperation was obtained. All children in the appropriate grades were asked to take a letter explaining the purpose and procedure of the study home to their parents, along with a permission slip (see 19 20 Appendix A). The parents were asked to indicate on the permission slip whether or not they gave their consent for their child to participate in the study, and to have their child return the signed permission slip to school. After all of the permission slips had been collected and prior to the children's research participation, the study was explained to the children, and each child was asked to sign an assent form if he or she was willing to participate in the study (see Appendix B). Only children who had (a) returned a parental permission form indicating their parents' approval of their participation in the study, and (b) given their own assent to participation served as subjects in the study. In order to ensure that the permission slips were returned to school promptly, an incentive of $10.00 was offered to each fourth-grade classroom or seventh-grade homeroom in which 90 percent of the children returned their permission slips before the study commenced. An additional $15.00 was offered to the fastest class in each elementary school and the two fastest homerooms in the middle school to return all of their permission slips. Parents did not need to give consent for their child to participate in the study for the permission slips to count toward earning the incentive; they only needed to sign the permission slip and have their child return the permission slip to school. The incentive money could be spent in any manner that the classes decided to spend it. This incentive system 21 resulted in 96 percent of the fourth-grade permission slips and 73 percent of the seventh-grade permission slips being returned in time for the study. Of the children who returned their permission slips, 94 percent of the fourth graders and 86 percent of the seventh graders received permission to participate. One of the elementary schools did not participate in the incentive system at the principal's request. The percentage of permission slips returned (98 percent) and the percentage of children who received parental permission to participate (93 percent) in the school which did not participate in the incentive system were similar to that of the other elementary schools. All of the classrooms and homerooms, with the exception of the classrooms in the elementary school that were not participating in the incentive system, received at least $10.00 for their participation in the study, whether or not the requisite number of students had returned their permission slips on time. Children serving as subjects were treated in accordance with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association, as delineated in the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists" (American Psychological Association, 1981). In addition, this study was approved by the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects of Michigan State University. Due to time constraints, some of the subjects did not complete the entire study. Three of the fourth-grade 22 classrooms and two of the seventh-grade homerooms did not have time to complete the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children. Three of the fourth-grade classrooms and four of the seventh-grade homerooms did not have time to complete the Young Children's Social Desirability Scale. Four sociometric groups of children were identified using the sociometric procedure described below. The six boys and six girls who best exemplified the four sociometric groups at each grade level were selected as subjects. Thus, the final sample used in the data analysis consisted of 96 children. Procedure The instruments which were administered to the children are listed in Table 1, along with the appendices in which they appear. The instruments were assembled into a booklet for each child who was participating in the study. The booklets were color-coded so that each child would receive a booklet with items pertaining to children of the same sex as the participant. Group administrations of the instruments were conducted in the fourth-grade classrooms and seventh-grade homerooms. The group administrations were conducted by the primary investigator and other advanced-level graduate students experienced in conducting group assessment 23 Table 1 Instruments Administered Instrument Appendix Sociometric Questionnaire C Class Play Inventory D Perceived Competence Scale for Children E Children's Assertive Behavior Scale F Efficacy Expectations Scale G Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions H Attributions Rating Scale 1 Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions J Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale K for Children Young Children's Social Desirability Scale L Self-Statement Instrument M sessions with children. The primary investigator instructed the other administrators about how to conduct the group sessions prior to this portion of the study. The administrators were in charge of the group sessions and read all of the instructions and items aloud as the children followed along and completed the items. The administrators were assisted by undergraduates who 24 monitored the individual progress of the children and answered individual questions. Group assessment sessions lasted approximately one hour. Following the group administrations, the sociometric questionnaire was used to identify the children who would participate in the individual interview sessions. Each child was identified as belonging to one of four sociometric groups--popular, average, neglected, or rejected-~on the basis of a two-dimensional sociometric model based on probability theory (Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983). This sociometric procedure was selected on the basis of its reliability and validity when compared to other sociometric procedures utilizing a two-dimensional social-impact and social-preference framework (Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983). Employing this classification procedure, the number of times each child was selected by another child as being "liked the most" (raw liked score) and the number of times each child was chosen by another child as being "liked the least" (raw disliked score) were computed. Next, the binomial distribution was applied to the raw liked scores, raw disliked scores, and raw impact scores (raw liked plus raw disliked scores), in order to determine rare (p < .05) scores. Assignments to sociometric groups were made on the basis of the following criteria: popular-~a rare liked score and a disliked score below the mean; rejected--a rare disliked score and'a liked score below the mean; neglected--a rare impact score; and 25 average--1iked, disliked and impact scores which would be expected by chance. The six boys and six girls in the fourth and seventh grades who best exemplified the four sociometric groups by having the most statistically significant scores (N_- 96) were selected for individual interviews. However, due to absenteeism from school, the final sample size for the individual interviews was 94. (One fourth grade male "popular" and one fourth grade female "popular" were unable to be interviewed.) During individual interview sessions, the Self-Statement Instrument was administered (see Appendix M). The individual interviews were conducted by the principal investigator, other advanced-level graduate students and undergraduate students, all of whom were experienced in conducting individual interviews with children. All interviewers, including the principal investigator, were blind as to the sociometric groups of the children being interviewed. A non-interviewer analyzed the data regarding the children's sociometric status and gave a list of the names of the children to be interviewed to the interviewers, with no identification as to which of the sociometric groups the children belonged. The principal investigator instructed the other interviewers about how to conduct the individual interview sessions prior to this portion of the study. The interviews were tape-recorded by the interviewers for transcription at a later time. They were conducted outside of the classroom 26 in settings where other children were unable to hear the responses of the child being interviewed. Individual interview sessions lasted approximately 20 minutes. Measures Sociometric Questionnaire The sociometric status of each child in the initial sample was assessed though the use of a peer nomination sociometric instrument. In the Sociometric Questionnaire, the children were asked to select the three children of the same sex as themselves whom they liked the most, and the three children of the same sex as themselves whom they least liked. The fourth-grade children were asked to select children from an alphabetized roster of the same-sex children attending their classroom whose parents had granted permission for them to participate in the study. The seventh-grade children were asked to select children from an alphabetized roster of the same-sex same-grade children attending their school whose parents had granted permission for them to participate in the study. This difference in methodology was necessitated because the fourth graders primarily interacted with other children in . their classroom during the school day, whereas the seventh graders were in classes with same-grade children from other homerooms as well as those from their own homeroom. The 27 Sociometric Questionnaire is presented in Appendix C. As outlined previously, the data obtained from the Sociometric Questionnaire was used to select the six boys and six girls in the fourth and seventh grades who best exemplified the four sociometric groups under consideration-~popular, average, neglected, and rejected children. These children would serve as subjects for the individual interviews. Class Play Inventory This instrument was used to explore children's reputations. It is an adaptation of Bower's (1960) class play sociometric, and is comprised of 14 roles. For each role, the children were asked to select the child of the same sex and class/grade as themselves who could best play each part. Their selection was made from the alphabetized rosters of children who had received parental permission to participate in the study, as outlined in the description of the Sociometric Questionnaire. One item from the inventory is: Someone who is liked by everybody. The Class Play Inventory is shown in Appendix D. Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, and Trost (1973) found that a negative assessment by peers in a class play 28 inventory was the most powerful predictor of later ' psychiatric disturbance, when compared to school records, teacher ratings, intellectual and achievement testing, and self-report measures. Newcomb and Bukowski (1984) found that the use of a class play inventory increased the ability to predict stable group membership among rejected children. The Class Play Inventory used in this study was previously subjected to a factor analysis followed by a varimax rotation by Newcomb and Bukowski (1983). A set of four factors was found: (a) Aggression--mean cruel boss, picks on smaller kids, stuck up, causes trouble, and selfish, (b) Observable Prominence-~liked by everyone, good-looking, good at sports, and team captain, (c) School Competence--smart, class president, and tries to help, and (d) Immaturity--afraid and acts like a little kid, and acts sad. The internal consistency of these factors was previously found to be acceptable, with a median alpha of .76. In order to assess the appropriateness of using these factors in the present study, the 14 raw role scores (consisting of the number of times that each child was nominated by another child for eaCh role) were converted into 2 scores standardized by both grade and sex. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, and the reliabilities of the factors were assessed using standard score coefficient alphas. The factors Aggression, 29 Observable Prominence, School Competence, and Immaturity, had alphas of .79, .84, .86, and .73, respectively. Perceived Competence Scale for Children This instrument, developed by Harter (1979), was selected instead of other instruments measuring self-esteem because of its commendable psychometric properties, which make it appropriate for clinical use as well as research purposes, and its subscale structure, which represents self-concept as being multidimensional, in atcordance with current theoretical and empirical work (Bukowski & Newcomb, 1983). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children is appropriate for use with third- through ninth-grade children. It consists of 28 items designed to measure children's perceptions of self-competence in four areas, which have been confirmed as separate areas through previous factor analyses: (a) Cognitive Competence, (b) Social Competence, (c) Physical Competence, and (d) General Self-Worth. Cognitive Competence refers to one's feelings of capability in school and in intellectual pursuits. Social Competence is associated with perceived effectiveness in peer relationships. Physical Competence is related to a child's feelings of proficiency in athletic activities. General Self-Worth is concerned with self-esteem and self-image in general. The items are presented in a four-choice question format. An example of 30 an item in this format is: REALLY SORT OF SORT OF REALLY TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE for me for me for me for me Some kids BUT Other kids often forget can remem- what they ber things learn easily. Two types of children with varying degrees of competence are described in each item. In accordance with the standard procedure for using this instrument, the children participating in the study were first asked to decide which type of child they were most similar to, and then to decide whether this description was "really true" for them, or " for them. This format has been found to "sort of true reduce children's tendency to give socially desirable responses (Harter, 1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children is reproduced in Appendix E, along with the instructions which were read to the children by the examiners. Each item of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children was scored from one (low perceived competence) to four (high perceived competence). The scores of the items comprising each subscale were summed and averaged to produce the four subscale scores (Cognitive Competence, Social Competence, Physical Competence, and General Self-Worth), in accordance with Harter's (1979) 31 instructions for scoring this instrument. Factor analysis of data from previous studies has revealed a high degree of independence between items of different subscales. Internal subscale reliability and test-retest reliability figures for the subscales have ranged from .69 to .87. validity has been reported to be in the range from .40 to .50 for this scale (Harter, 1982). Prior to data analysis, the internal consistency of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children was investigated for the subjects being studied. Subscale scores were converted into 2 scores standardized by both grade and sex. The standard score coefficient alphas were .77, .83, .82, and .77 for Cognitive Competence, Social Competence, Physical Competence, and General Self-Worth, respectively. These high reliability coefficients were similar to those obtained in other studies (Bukowski & Newcomb, 1983; Harter, 1982). Children's Assertive Behavior Scale The Children's Assertive Behavior Scale (Wood & Michelson, 1978b) is a 27-item instrument which assesses children's responses to interpersonal situations (such as conversations, compliments, complaints, requests, and empathy) along a passive-assertive-aggressive continuum. Each item is presented in a multiple-choice format, in which each choice represents a different amount of 32 assertiveness, as in the following example: You need someone to do something for you. You would usually: (a) Not ask for anything to be done. (b) Give a small hint that you need something done. (c) Say, "Would you please do something for me?" d) Say, ”I want you to do this for me." (e) Say, "You gotta do this for me." Please refer to Appendix F for a reproduction of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale. Scoring of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale was done in accordance with the authors' instructions (Michelson & Wood, 1982). Specifically, each item was scored -2 for a very passive response, -1 for a partially passive response, 0 for an assertive response, +1 for a partially aggressive response, and +2 for a very aggressive response. Three subscale scores were generated from the item scores. A Passivity score was derived by summing the negative numbers. An Aggressiveness score was found by totaling the positive numbers. A Nonassertiveness score, representing the child's degree of non-passivity and non-aggressiveness was determined by summing items' absolute values. The Children's Assertive Behavior Scale has been found to have internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20) of .78, and test-retest reliability of .66 over a period of four weeks (Michelson, Vucelic, Andrasik and Coleman, 33 1979). Wood and Michelson (1978a) found low to moderately significant external validity when the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale was compared to a behavioral analog test and teacher ratings, while Michelson et a1. (1979) found significant relationships between the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale and concurrent social and academic Competence measures. Michelson and Wood (1980) have reported that the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale differentiated children who had participated in an assertiveness training program from children in a control group, thus showing the discriminant validity of the instrument. In order to evaluate the internal consistency of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale in assessing children's assertiveness, subjects' scores on this instrument were standardized according to grade and sex, and the standard score coefficient alpha was calculated across all items. Alpha was equal to .86. Efficacy Expectations Scale The 30-item Efficacy Expectations Scale was designed by the principal investigator in order to make an initial exploration of this area of children's cognitions, as no instrument for assessing children's efficacy expectations was available. The idea of assessing children's efficacy expectations was based on Bandura's (1977) theoretical 34 conceptualization of efficacy expectations. The Efficacy Expectations Scale was originally designed to examine two areas of children's efficacy expectations: (a) how well children expect to perform behaviors related to certain social situations, and (b) how well children expect to perform behaviors of varying degrees of assertiveness. Children's expectations of their social performance could be further divided into expectations for three types of social situations--initiation of acquaintanceships and friendships, maintenance of acquaintanceships and friendships, and resolution of conflict in acquaintanceships and friendships (five items each). Likewise, children's expectations of their assertiveness could also be broken down into three categories of assertiveness--passive, assertive, and aggressive (five items each). The efficacy expectations under examination parallel the self-perceptions which were assessed using the Perceived Competency Scale for Children and the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale by exploring situational competency and assertiveness from the aspect of efficacy expectations. The items comprising this instrument are arranged in a randomized order. Each item is followed by a five-point Likert scale, as follows: How good are you at... poor great introducing yourself to someone new +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 35 The children were instructed to circle the number which best reflected their opinion. The Efficacy Expectations Scale is presented in Appendix G, along with instructions for completing the scale. In order to identify the underlying factors which composed the Efficacy Expectations Scale, subjects' scores were standardized by grade and sex, then subjected to exploratory factor analysis using Package (Hunter, Cohen & Nicol, 1982). This computer program yielded principal axis factors, followed by a varimax rotation of factors having eigenvalues greater than or equal to one. One method of data reduction yielded three factors: (a) Assertive Efficacy Expectations, (b) Aggressive Efficacy Expectations, and (c) Passive Efficacy Expectations. One item, "saying what you think", was omitted from further analyses, as its factor loadings were equally highly correlated with two of the factors, Assertive Efficacy Expectations and Aggressive Efficacy Expectations. The remaining items within the three factors were then subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. The resulting standard score coefficient alphas were .88, .82 and .54 for the factors Assertive Efficacy Expectations, Aggressive Efficacy Expectations, and Passive Efficacy Expectations, respectively. Items from which the Assertive, Aggressive, and Passive Efficacy Expectations factors were comprised and their respective factor loadings are presented in Table 2. 36 Table 2 Efficacy Expectations Scale Factor Loadings Factor Expectation 1 2 3 Getting along with others 66* 3 -1 Disclosing information about self 64* 20 -4 Asking other to do something together 63* 23 1 Meeting new child 62* 10 11 Asking other to be partner 62* 21 6 Introducing self 62* 18 8 Inviting other over 61* 18 15 Sharing 61* -l7 l6 Settling disagreement 59* -l6 l4 Complimenting other 58* l 14 Making up 57* 1 27 Standing up for self 56* 37 -1 Working together 53* 21 -13 Disclosing feelings 52* 26 -9 Apologizing 50* 5 27 Asking for what one wants 45* 39 -16 Saying no 39* 19 20 Getting along with disliked other 32* 16 18 Getting into fights 9 77* 2 Threatening other -3 76* 4 Bossing other 0 74* 9 Beating other up 10 71* l Telling other what to do 26 61* 2 Getting revenge 27 59* 12 Keeping quiet about opinion 11 -2 67* Keeping feelings to self -2 10 62* Pretending not to care l4 19 56* Doing nothing when other is mean 19 -1O 49* Not standing up for self 13 15 42* Note. Factors 1, 2, and 3 are AssertIVe Efficacy Eipectations, Aggressive Efficacy Expectations, and Passive Efficacy Expectations, respectively. Note. Asteriks indicate the highest factor loading of each Item . Factor analysis of the Efficacy Expectations Scale could also result in one factor labeled General Efficacy 37 Expectations, which had a standard score coefficient alpha of .88 upon confirmatory factor analysis. General Efficacy Expectations, as well as Assertive, Aggressive, and Passive Efficacy Expectations, will be examined in subsequent data analyses. Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions The Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions was designed by the principal investigator because no instrument for the assessment of this area of children's metacognitions existed. It was created on the basis of Bandura's (1977) theoretical conceptualization of outcome expectations in order to provide the means for an initial investigation of children's outcome expectations for their usual behaviors during social situations. The instrument ‘consists of six randomly ordered items. Two items pertain to initiation of acquaintanceships and friendships, two items concern maintenance of acquaintanceships and friendships, and two items relate to conflict in acquaintanceships and friendships. Each item consists of four parts. First, the children are presented with a scenario and asked to circle the action in which they would most typically engage. They are asked to select their usual action from five choices representing various positions along a passive-assertive-aggressive continuum, as in Wacd and Michelson's (1978b) Children's Assertive 38 Behavior Scale. Second, the children are requested to think about what would happen if they engaged in the action they had selected as their answer and to respond to the other parts of the item. They are asked to decide how likely they would be to accomplish their goal on the basis of their typical action, and to circle the number which best reflects their opinion on the corresponding five-point Likert scale. The third part of the item taps the children's opinions about their likelihood of achieving a positive affective response from a peer involved in the hypothetical situation. Again, the children are asked to circle the number which indicates their opinion on the corresponding five-point Likert scale. The fourth portion of the item concerns the children's feelings about the social reputation they might gain from their typical action. The children are to indicate their choice by circling either the word "mean", "shy", "okay", or "terrific". An item from the outcome expectations scale for typical actions is: You want someone to come over to your house after school. You would probably: a. Not say anything to them. b. Mention that you're not busy after school. c. Ask them if they would like to come over. d. Tell them you want them to come over. e. Tell them they have to come over today. What do you think would happen if you did that? never always a. Would they come over? a.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 39 never always b. Would they like you? b.+---+---+---+---+ ' O 25 SO 75 100 c. What would they think c.mean shy okay terrific of you? The Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions is shown in Appendix H. The underlying factors composing the Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions were identified by standardizing subjects' scores by grade and sex, then performing exploratory factor analysis using Package (Hunter, Cohen & Nicol, 1982). Factor analysis was performed on the second and third parts of each item simultaneously, that is, outcome expectations for typical actions related to goals and outcome expectations for typical actions related to affect. (Factor analysis was not performed on the first part of each item, because the degree of assertiveness was not a variable of interest. This portion of the item was only included as a basis for answering the other portions of the item. Children's assertiveness was analyzed using Wood and Michelson's Children's Assertive Behavior Scale, 1978b.) The use of this procedure resulted in one factor, Typical Outcome Expectations, under which all outcome expectations for typical actions related to goals and affect were subsumed. This factor had a standard score coefficient alpha of .87 when subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, 40 demonstrating satisfactory internal consistency. Factor analysis was performed on the fourth part of each item separately, because it would be inappropriate to perform factor analysis simultaneously on nominal and ratio scales of measurement. One factor, Typical Reputation, was found. Upon confirmatory factor analysis, this factor had a standard score coefficient alpha of .79, demonstrating adequate internal reliability. SinCe Typical Reputation was originally a nominal scale, it was converted into four ratio scales for use in further data analysis by counting the number of times children indicated each category of the scale, that is, the number of times that they indicated that their typical actions would result in the reputations "terrific", "okay", "shy", and "mean". This procedure resulted in four reputational scores: Typical Popular Reputation, Typical Average Reputation, Typical Neglected Reputation, and Typical Rejected Reputation. Attributions Rating Scale This instrument was designed by the principal investigator in order to permit a more precise evaluation to be made of children's attributions than is allowed for by the attribution instruments which are currently available. The Attributions Rating Scale is similar to a variety of other instruments. It assesses children's causal attributions to internal versus external sources, as 41 does the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). It allows children's attributions for positive and negative outcomes to be examined separately, like the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965). It explores children's attributions for social outcomes, as opposed to general situational outcomes or outcomes in other domains (such as academic achievement), as do instruments created by researchers such as Ames, Ames, and Garrison (1977), and Goetz and Dweck (1980). However, the Attributions Rating Scale differs from other instruments in that it allows internal attributions based on ability to be separated from those based on effort, and external attributions related to other people to be separated from those related to fate or luck. The Attributions Rating Scale also provides children with Likert scales for each response choice, rather than using a forced-choice format as do most of the other instruments. The use of forced-choice formats have been critiqued by Elig and Frieze (1979) as possibly biasing attributional responses. The Attributions Rating Scale is composed of 12 scenarios, 6 scenarios with positive friendship or acquaintanceship outcomes and 6 scenarios with negative friendship or acquaintanceship outcomes. Each scenario is followed by four randomly-ordered reasons for the outcome of the scenario. One reason is derived from each of the following categories: (a) internal causation due to 42 ability, (b) internal causation due to effort, (c) external causation due to another person, and (d) external causation due to fate or luck. Each of the four reasons is followed by a five-point Likert scale. The children instructed to circle the number which best reflects their view of the importance of each reason in determining the outcome of the scenario. An example is: You meet a new kid at school and you soon become friends. Why? never always a. My friend introduced us. a.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. They were assigned the seat b.+~--+---+---+---+ next to me. O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I'm good at making friends. c.+---+---+---+---+ It comes naturally. O 25 50 75 100 never always d. I showed them around school d.+-—-+---+---+---+ and asked them to play with me. O 25 SO 75 100 The Attributions Rating Scale is presented in Appendix 1. After standardizing subjects' scores by grade and sex, four separate exploratory factor analyses using Package (Hunter, Cohen & Nicol, 1982) were performed in order to identify the underlying factors which made up the Attributions Rating Scale. Four separate factor analyses were performed instead of a single factor analysis, after a single factor analysis resulted in factors which did not 43 make sense because of the number of different dimensions encompassed by this instrument: positive/negative outcome, internal/external causation, causation due to ability/effort/other/luck or fate. The four separate factor analyses which were performed were: (a) a factor analysis of the ratings of internal ability causation, (b) a factor analysis of the ratings of internal effort causation, (c) a factor analysis of the ratings of external other causation, and (d) a factor analysis of the ratings of external fate or luck causation. Certain items were omitted from further analysis because they did not load with the other items being analyzed in a way that made intuitive sense. (Specifically, "They're being nice", "I -waved my hand real hard and said 'Pick mel'", and "They were nice to me" were excluded.) In addition, "I have a bad temper", "What can I do to settle this?", "We'll see each other again soon and things will be okay", "They'll have to make up with me", and "I'll have to ask them first next time" were omitted from further analysis because of their emphasis on rectification of a negative outcome rather than causal attribution. Six factors resulted: (a) Positive Ability (positive outcome due to ability), (b) Negative Ability (negative outcome due to ability), (c) Positive Effort (positive outcome due to effort), (d) Negative Effort (negative outcome due to effort), (e) Positive Other (positive outcome due to other person, and (f) Negative Other (negative outcome due to other person), 44 with standard score coefficient alphas of .86, .74, .76, .74, .70, and .78, respectively. Items from which the aforementioned factors were comprised and their respective factor loadings are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Table 3 Attributions Rating Scale Factor Loadings: Ability Factor Attribution l 2 I‘m popuIar. Irm a naturally friendly 80* 7 person. Everybody likes me. 80* 6 I'm good at sports. 76* 5 It just comes easy for me. 76* 19 I'm good at making friends. It comes 73* 6 naturally. I always have fun. 70* 30 I have a hard time making friends. 0 79* I'm just an unpopular person. 3 70* I'm a quiet person. 20 65* I'm not good at games. 21 64* It's just how I am. 30 63* NOte. Factors 1 and 2 are Positive AbIIity and Negat1ve ABITity, respectively. Note. Asteriks indicate the highest factor loading of each Item. ‘ 45 Table 4 Attributions Rating Scale Factor Loadings: Effort Factor Attribution 1 2 I didn't ask at a gooditime to join 77* 17 the game. It's how I act. ' 75* 17 I didn't try hard enough to be friendly. 66* 29 I act quiet when I'm with them. 65* 24 I showed them around school, and asked 6 72* them to play with me. I work at it. 21 68* I worked hard and I deserve it. 27 67* I thought of lots of fun things to do. 38 65* I asked them, and it worked. 37 58* NOte. Factors 1 and 2 are Negative Effort andiPositive Efffirt, respectively. Note. Asteriks indicate the highest factor loading of each Item . Table 5 Attributions Rating Scale Factor Loadings: Other Factor Attribution l 2 They're mean. 81*_— 17 They're stuck up. 72* 22 Someone started a rumor about me. 66* 2 What a creep. 66* 32 That's how the other kids are. 64* 21 My friend introduced us. 12 75* My best friend is popular. 16 75* They didn't have anything else to do. 28 68* The teacher just decided. 24 58* Note. Factors 1 and 2*are Negative Other and Positive Other, respectively. Note. Asteriks indicate the highest factor loading of each IEem o 46 Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions The Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions was designed to complement the Outcome Expectations Scale for I Typical Actions by allowing an initial examination of children's outcome expectations for diverse actions which may or may not be typical for each child. The principal investigator created this instrument, based on Bandura's (1977) theoretical conceptualization of outcome expectations, as no instrument for the assessment of this area of children's metacognitions existed. The instrument consists of 15 randomly-ordered items. Each item is comprised of a social situation and hypothetical action, followed by a four-part question. Social situations involving initiation of friendships and acquaintanceships, maintenance of friendships and acquaintanceships, and conflict during friendships and acquaintanceships are each represented by five items. One item from each situational type is paired with a hypothetical action from each of the following categories: very passive, mildly passive, assertive, mildly aggressive, and very aggressive. The children are asked to think about the what would happen if they engaged in the hypothetical actions in response to the social situations, and then to answer the four-part questions that follow each of situation/hypothetical action combination. The four-part questions require the children to decide how likely they would be to accomplish a goal, 47 how likely they would be to achieve a positive affective response from a peer involved in the situation, what Social reputation they might gain from the hypothetical action, and how typical the hypothetical action would be of their own behavior. The children indicate their responses to parts one, two, and four of each question by circling the number which indicates their opinion on the corresponding Likert scale. They signify their response to part three by circling the word which best reflects their potential reputation, that is, "mean", ”shy", "okay" or "terrific". IA sample item from the Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions is: You see a new kid on your block. What will happen if you don't do anything? never always a. Will you meet them? a.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b.+---+---+-—-+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 c. What will they think c.mean shy okay terrific of you? never always d. Did this story sound 'd.+---+---+---+---+ like something you O 25 50 75 100 would usually do? The Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions is shown in Appendix J. Identification of the underlying factors of the Outcome 48 Expectations Scale for Various Actions was accomplished by standardizing subjects' scores by grade and sex, and performing exploratory factor analysis using Hunter, Cohen and Nicol's (1982) Package computer program. Factor analysis was performed simultaneously on the first and. second parts of each item, that is, outcome expeCtations for various actions related to goals and outcome expectations for various actions related to affect. (Factor analysis was not performed on the fourth part of each item, because the typicality of the actions was not a variable of interest at this point in the study. This portion of the item was only included as a basis for separating typical from atypical actions during later data analysis.) The use of this procedure resulted in one factor under which all outcome expectations for various actions related to goals and affect were subsumed, Various Outcome Expectations. This factor's standard score coefficient alpha when subjected to confirmatory factor analysis was .95, demonstrating a high degree of internal consistency. Factor analysis of outcome expectations for various actions related to goals and affect could also result in . three factors: (a) Various Assertive Expectations, (consisting of items 5.a., 5.b., 13.a., and 13.b.), (b) Various Aggressive Expectations, (consisting of items 8.a., 8.b., 11.a., and ll.b.), and (c) Various Passive Expectations, (consisting of items 6.a., 6.b., 15.a., and 49 15.b.). Standard score coefficient alphas for these three factors were .87, .83, and .74, respectively. Items from which the aforementioned factors were comprised and their respective factor loadings are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions Factor andings Factor Outcome Expectation l 2 3 Thll other you want to play with them- 83*1 19 15 Affect Tell other you want them to play with 81* 21 19 you-Affect TellGother you want to play with them- 80* 23 15 oa Tell other you want them to play with 72* 30 27 you-Goal Tell otper they have to work with you- 30 79* 8 Goa Tell other they have to work with you- 35 78* 8 Affect Tell other they have to do you a favor, 12 76* 26 or else-Goal Tell other they have to do you a favor, 20 70* 26 or else-Affect Pretendlyou didn't hear name-calling- 27 O 71* Goa Pretend you didn't hear name-calling- 7 43 69* Affect Hint you'll be punished for other's 31 20 65* wrongdoing-Goal Hint you 11 be punished for other's 33 23 63* wrongdoing-Affect Note. Factors 1, 2, and 3’are Vafious Assertive EXpectations, Various Aggressive Expectations, and Various Passive Expectations, respectively. Note. Asteriks indicate the highest factor loading of each em. 50 A separate factor analysis was performed on the third part of each item, outcome expectations for various actions related to reputation. The separate factor analysis was performed because it would be inappropriate to perform factor analysis simultaneously on nominal and ratio scales of measurement. One factor, Various Reputation, was found. This factor had a standard score coefficient alpha of .90, again demonstrating high internal reliability. Since this factor was originally a nominal scale, it was converted into four ratio scales for use in further data analysis by counting the number of times children indicated each category of the scale, i.e., the number of times that they indicated that their various actions would result in "mean". the reputations "terrific", ”okay", "shy”, and This procedure resulted in four reputational scores: Various Popular Reputation, Various Average Reputation, Various Neglected Reputation, and Various Rejected Reputation. Nowicki-Strickland Locus pf Control Scale for Children The purpose of this scale, designed by Nowicki and Strickland (1973), is to assess children's internal versus external locus of control. The scale is composed of 40 items; each item consists of a statement which represents either internal or external locus of control. Next to each item are the words "yes" and "no". The children are asked 51 to circle either the "yes" or the ”no" adjacent to each statement to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each statement. An example of an item from this scale is: yes no Do you believe that most problems will solve ' themselves if you just don't fool with them? The instrument is scored by counting the number of times each child agreed with an external locus of control statement, and yields a total score between 0 and 40. The total score represents the subject's amount of external locus of control, and conversely, his amount of internal locus of control. The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children is reproduced in Appendix K. Before proceeding with data analysis, the internal reliability of the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale, considered to be one of the most reliable and valid instruments on children's attributions available, was examined by calculating Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. Confirmatory factor analysis using Package (Hunter, Cohen, & Nicol, 1982) resulted in a Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 of .93 for the entire scale and demonstrated high internal consistency. 52 Young Children's Social Desirability Scale Ford and Rubin's (1970) Young Children's Social Desirability Scale was included in the study in order to provide a means of determining whether or not differential tendencies to produce socially desirable answers might be present in the different groups of subjects being studied, which might confound the results of the study. The instrument consists of 2 practice items and 26 scorable forced-choice items. Each item consists of two pairs of questions, one more socially desirable than the other. The children are asked to circle the number of the question in each pair of questions which best characterizes their behavior. A typical item from this scale is: 1. Do you sometimes argue with your mother? or 2. Do you never argue with your mother? The scale is scored by totaling the number of socially desirable responses given by each child. The Young Children's Social Desirability Scale is reproduced in Appendix L. A study of the reliability of the Young Children's Social Desirability Scale was conducted by Ford and Rubin (1970). Using nursery school children as subjects, Ford and Rubin found split-half reliabilities in the .70s and .808 for boys and girls over four years of age. 53 Test-retest reliabilities were in the .403, .508 and .60s. Reliability increased with the age of the subjects. EXploration of the construct validity of this instrument indicated a correlation between high scores on this instrument and motivation to respond positively to interpersonal demands. The internal reliability of the Young Children's Social Desirability Scale, as evaluated through the calculation of Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 following standardization of subjects' scores by grade and sex, was .91. Not surprisingly, the internal reliability of this instrument found in the preSent study was higher than that obtained by Ford and Rubin (1970), because the subjects who participated in the present study were several years older than Ford and Rubin's subjects. Self-Statement Instrument This instrument was designed by the principal investigator for the purpose of assessing three areas of children's cognitions, that is, their self-perceptions, their attributions, and their outcome expectations, using an open-ended format. In this instrument, the children are asked to pretend that they are involved in nine social scenarios. Three of the scenarios involve the possible initiation of a friendship or acquaintanceship, three of the scenarios involve the potential maintenance of a 54 friendship or acquaintanceship, and three of the scenarios involve the possibility of conflict during a friendship or acquaintanceship. One scenario from each of the above categories results in a positive outcome, one in a neutral outcome, and one in a negative outcome, for a total of nine different combinations of scenarios and outcomes. The scenarios/outcomes are presented to the children in a randomized order. The children are requested to answer three question about each of the scenarios/outcomes, which tap their self-perceptions, attributions and outcome expectations. An example of an item from this instrument is: You and your friend play a game together, and you have a great time. a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? The Self-Statement Instrument is presented in Appendix M. In order to score the children's responses, the tape recordings of their answers were transcribed by the principal investigator and an undergraduate assistant trained to transcribe tapes. Following transcription, the principal investigator divided each of the children's responses into the smallest possible informational units, and devised a two-part coding scheme for coding each of these informational units. (The only informational units 55 which were not coded were conditional phrases. The information contained in these phrases was not the child's main idea, and was therefore omitted.) Each informational unit was given a locus of control code and a response type code. The coding scheme and coding scheme summary sheet are presented in Appendix N. In order to assess whether or not the coding scheme could be used reliably, the principal investigator coded all of the children's responses and an undergraduate assistant coded one-third of the children's responses which had been randomly selected from the total sample. The undergraduate had been trained by the principal investigator to use the coding scheme, and had practiced using the coding scheme on other samples of children's responses to these questions. The undergraduate and the principal investigator were both blind to the sociometric group identities of the subjects. Inter-rater reliability was measured using two methods. First, Cohen's (1960) Kappa was calCulated. This reliability statistic was selected instead of the most commonly used measure of reliability, the interobserver agreement percentage, because it controls for chance agreement between raters (Booth, Mitchell, & Solin, 1979; Mitchell, 1979). Cohen's Kappa for the locus of control codes was .94, .88, and .93 for self-perceptions, attributions, and outcome expectations, respectively. Cohen's Kappa for the response type codes was .85, .74, and .82 for self-perceptions, 56 attributions, and outcome expectations, respectively. Second, generalizability coefficients were calculated for each of the locus of control and response type codes. The use of generalizability coefficients, based on generalizability theory as developed by Cronbach, Gleser, Nanda, and Rajaratnam (1972), was selected as a method of measuring reliability because it allows the researcher to compare the variance attributable to several sources of error rather than examining only one source of error. The sources of error of interest are determined by the requirements of the research design (Cronbach, et al., 1972; Mitchell, 1979). Generalizability coefficients were used in this study to compare two possible sources of error, raters and subjects. The difference between raters' coding of subjects' responses was hypothesized to be insignificant in comparison to the difference between subjects' responses. The generalizability coefficients for each locus of control and response type code were calculated by conducting within subjects analyses of variance, with rater as the repeated measure, and using the results to compute the ratio of the variance of the true scores to the variance of the observed scores. The formula used in calculating the generalizability coefficients was: HSR +MSS 57 where MSR represents mean square due to raters, and MSS represents mean square due to subjects. Generalizability coefficients for the locus of control and response type codes are found in Appendix 0. The generalizability coefficients revealed that the difference between raters' coding of subjects' responses was indeed insignificant when compared to the difference between subjects' responses, as predicted. As many codes in each part of the Self-Statement Instrument (self-perceptions, attributions, and outcome expectations) occurred infrequently, new categorical coding schemes were derived to ensure that factor analyses would not be influenced by codes which occurred in less than one percent of the children's responses. First, frequency counts of the codes in each part of the Self-Statement Instrument were conducted. Second, the codes occurring in greater than one percent of the children's responses for a particular part of the Self-Statement Instrument and their opposites were selected. Third, codes occurring in less than one percent of the children's responses which were closely related in meaning to the selected codes were combined with the selected codes to form categorical coding schemes. Finally, any of the newly formed coding categories occurring in less than one percent of the children's responses were deleted. The newly derived 58 categorical coding schemes and the original codes from which they were composed are listed in Appendix P. Reliability and generalizability were calculated a second time for the newly derived categorical coding schemes. According to Mitchell (1979): First, and most basically, the coefficients computed should be based on the same scores that are used in the substantive analysis of the study. If a composite score (such as a total of several categories or time units) is to be used for analysis, it is this composite--and not its component individual categories or time units-~that should be examined for agreement, reliability, or generalizability. (p. 387) Cohen's Kappa for the categorical coding schemes was .89, .86, and .86 for self-perceptions, attributions and outcome expectations, respectively. Generalizability coefficients for the categorical coding schemes may be found in Appendix Q. The generalizability coefficients show that the difference between raters' coding of subjects' responses using the categorical coding schemes were insignificant in comparison to the difference between subjects' responses, as predicted. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted via Hunter, Cohen and Nicol's (1982) Package computer program in order to determine the underlying factors of the three newly derived categorical coding schemes. One factor, Good, was found for the self-perception part of the Self-Statement Instrument. 59 (The Package program requires two factors which are opposite in meaning to be combined into one factor in which one of the original factors is "reflected" or negated. The program views this factor as "good/not bad". The user divides this factor into two factors, "good" and "bad" prior to further data analyses.) The Good factor consisted of the response type coding categories ”good” and "bad" (see Appendix P). The standard score coefficient alpha of the Good factor was .53. One factor, Accidentally Do/Say Wrong, was found for the attribution portion of the self-statement instrument. This factor consisted of the response type coding categories "do/say something wrong/disliked by other" and "accident" (see Appendix P). It's standard score coefficient alpha was .63. One factor, Negative Outcome, was found for the outcome expectations part of the Self-Statement Instrument. This factor consisted of the response type coding categories "non-participate" and "negative outcome" (see Appendix P). This factor had a standard score coefficient alpha of 1.00. The standard score coefficient alphas for the Self—Statement Instrument are noticeably lower than the standard score coefficient alphas for the other instruments used in this study. The lack of internal consistency in the factors of the Self-Statement Instrument, and the dearth of response type coding categories which were able to be factor analyzed into factors, are probably related to the fact that most of the responses that the children gave 60 contained only one informational unit. Factor analysis is based upon the correlations between coding categories within each response of each child. Since most of the children's responses were coded using only one coding category, there was little correlation between coding categories within responses. In order to prevent the possibility that certain children would repeatedly give responses which fell into the same coding categories throughout their answers and bias their group's score in these categories, the children were given a score of ”l” for one or more occurrence of a coding category in their answers, and a score of ”O" for a coding category which did not occur in any of their responses, rather than a number signifying the total number of times a coding category occurred in their responses. A list summarizing the instruments used and the factors which were derived for each of the instruments is presented in Table 7. A list of the categorical coding schemes for the Self-Statement Instrument is presented in Table 8. Table 7 Instruments and Factors 61 Instrument Factors Class Play Aggression Inventory Observable Prominence School Competence Immaturity ' Perceived Cognitive Competence Competence Social Competence Scale for Physical Competence Children General Self-Worth Children's Passivity Assertive Aggressiveness Behavior Scale Nonassertiveness Efficacy Expectations Scale Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions Attributions Rating Scale Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children Assertive Efficacy Expectations Aggressive Efficacy Expectations Passive General Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Efficacy Expectations Efficacy Expectations Outcome Expectations Popular Reputation Average Reputation Ne lected Reputation Rejected Reputation Positive Ability Negative Ability Positive Effort Negative Effort Positive Other Negative Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Other Outcome Expectations Assertive Expectations Aggressive Expectations Passive Expectations Popular Reputation Average Reputation Neglected Reputation Rejected Reputation External Locus of Control 62 Table 7 (continued) Instruments and Factors Instrument Factors Young Children's Social Desirability Scale Self-Statement Instrument Locus of Control Codes Self-Perceptions Attributions Outcome Expectations Response Type Codes Self-Perceptions Attributions Outcome Expectations Social Desirability Internal Locus of Control External Locus of Control Dual Locus of Control Internal Locus of Control External Locus of Control Dual Locus of Control Internal Locus of Control External Locus of Control Dual Locus of Control Good Bad Accidentally Do/Say Wrong Negative Outcome Table 8 63 Categorical Coding Schemes for the Self-Statement Instrument Question Type Coding Schemes Self-Perception Attribution Outcome Expectation Positive Affect Agreement Desire to Initiate Initiation Interaction Desire to Maintain Friendship Positive Outcome Try Shy Sad Sorry Mad Negative Affect Disagreement Positive Affect Agreement Desire to Initiate Positive Outcome Termination Prevention Interaction Try Similar New Prosocial Action Negative Affect Disagreemant Negative Outcome Relationship Termination Fate ' Dissimilar Do/Say Wrong Accident Antisocial Action Positive Affect Agreement Initiation Interaction Positive Outcome Try Talk Relationship Increase Termination Prevention Negative Affect Disagreement 64 Table 8 (continued) Categorical Coding Schemes for the Self-Statement Instrument Question Type Coding Schemes OutcomefExpectation NOn-Participation (continued) Negative Outcome Fate Noncommunicative Relationship Termination RESULTS A series of orthogonal comparisons utilizing multivariate and univariate analysis of variance were made in order to examine differences in self-perceptions, attributions, and outcome expectations of children as a function of sociometric group, grade level and sex. First, popular and average children were combined to form one group of children with positive sociometric status. Neglected and rejected children were combined to form one group of children with negative sociometric status. Children with positive sociometric status were then compared with children who had negative sociometric status. Second, popular children were contrasted with average children. Third, neglected children were contrasted with rejected children. In all of the analyses, the effects of grade level (fourth grade versus seventh grade) and sex (male versus female) were explored along with the effects of sociometric group (positive sociometric status versus negative sociometric status, or popular versus average, or neglected versus rejected), resulting in a series of 2 x 2 x 2 analyses. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to identify the sources of significant differences found through multivariate analyses 65 66 of variance. Interactions among factors which were found to be significant through univariate analyses of variance were analyzed using the Scheffe' method of multiple comparisons. Class Play Inventory Multivariate analyses of variance performed upon the factors of the Class Play Inventory, i.e. Aggression, Observable Prominence, School Competence, and Immaturity, revealed that there were significant differences between children with positive and negative‘sociometric status, .§(4:85) - 5.80, p < .001. Univariate analyses of variance showed that the sources of these differences were Observable Prominence, {(1,88) 8 13.63, p < .001, School Competence, {(1,88) - 8.55, p < .01, and Immaturity, §(1,88) - 8.51, p < .01. Children with positive sociometric status were nominated more frequently than children with negative sociometric status for Observable Prominence (Ms 3 5.54 and 1.14) and School Competence (Ms = 2.92 and 1.23), while children with positive sociometric status were nominated less frequently than children with negative sociometric status for Immaturity (Ms - 1.27 and 2.88). Differences in Class Play Inventory role nominations between popular and average children were revealed through MANOVA, {(4,37) - 6.87, p < .001. ANOVAs showed 67 differences between pOpular and average children in Observable Prominence, F(l,40) - 9.46, p < .01, School Competence, F(l,40) - 11.53, p < .01, and Immaturity, {(1,40) - 9.66, p < .01. The mean numbers of nominations for Observable Prominence were 8.67 and 2.42 for popular and average children, respectively. The mean numbers of nominations for School Competence were 4.25 and 1.58 for popular and average children, in that order. The mean numbers of nominations for Immaturity were .46 and 2.08 for popular and average children, respectively. When neglected children were compared with rejected children, significant differences were found between groups using the MANOVA procedure, F(4,37) = 7.30, p < .001. These differences were due to the factors Aggression, ‘§(1,40) - 13.70, p < .001, and Immaturity, {(1,40) - 7.97, p < .01, as shown by ANOVA computations. Neglected children received fewer nominations for Aggression than did rejected children (Ms - 1.79 and 6.54). Neglected children also received fewer nominations for Immaturity than did rejected children (Ms - 1.62 and 4112). Significant differences were found between fourth- and seventh-grade children using MANOVA, {(4,85) = 3.76, R.< .01. ANOVA showed that fourth graders received more nominations for Immaturity than seventh graders, §(l,88) = 5.70, pq< .05. Fourth graders received an average of 2.73 Immaturity nominations, whereas seventh graders received an average of 1.42 nominations for Immaturity. 68 Fourth-grade children with positive sociometric status were significantly different from seventh-grade children with positive sociometric status, according to MANOVA computations, {(4,37) - 2.74, p < .05. This difference was due to the factor Observable Prominence, {(1,40) = 4.20,'p < .05. Fourth-grade children with positive sociometric status received a mean of 7.62 Observable Prominence nominations, while seventh-grade children with positive sociometric status received a mean of 3.46 Observable Prominence nominations.“ Further analyses using MANOVA revealed a significant Group x Grade interaction among children with positive sociometric status, F(4,37) - 3.49, p < .05. ANOVA showed that this interaction was significant for the factor Observable Prominence, §(l,40) = 7.32, p < .01. Mean Observable Prominence scores were 13.50, 3.84, 1.75, and 3.08 for pOpular fourth-grade children, pOpular seventh-grade children, average fourth-grade children, and average seventh-grade children, respectively. Post hoc analyses using the Scheffe' method of multiple comparisons revealed differences significant at the .05 level between pOpular fourth- and seventh-grade children, and between popular and average fourth-grade children. Popular fourth-grade children received more Observable Prominence nominations than popular seventh-grade children. Popular fourth-grade children also received more Observable Prominence nominations than average fourth-grade children. 69 The results of the Class Play Inventory serve as confirmation that children with positive sociometric status have more positive reputations than do children with negative sociometric status. The results also indicated that popular children have more positive reputations than do average children, and that rejected children have more negative reputations than do neglected children. Popular fourth-grade children received the greatest number of Observable Prominence nominations of any group of children. Perceived Competence Scale for Children Multivariate analyses of variance were performed upon the factor scores from the Perceived Competence Scale for Children: Cognitive Competence, Social Competence, Physical Competence, and General Self-Worth. The MANOVA results showed that there were significant differences between the responses of children with positive sociometric status and those of children with negative sociometric status, F(4,85) - 7.13, p < .001. Univariate analyses of variance indicated that the sources of these differences were Cognitive Competence, {(1,88) = 5.55, p < .05, and Social Competence, Efil,88) - 17.84, p < .001. Children with positive sociometric status exhibited greater perceived self-competence than children with negative sociometric status in both categories (for Cognitive Competence, the means were 20.10 for children with positive sociometric 70 status and 18.23 for children with negative sociometric status; for Social Competence, the means were 20.79 for children with positive sociometric status and 17.31 for children with negative sociometric status). MANOVA also revealed significant differences between boys' and girls' responses, F(4,85) - 4.86, p < .01. Univariate analyses of variance indicated the sources of these differences: Social Competence, {(1,88) - 12.72, p < .001; Physical Competence, F(l,88) = 14.07, p_< .001; and General Self-Worth, {(1,88) - 4.00, p < .05. Boys' responses in each of these categories showed greater perceived self-competence than did girls' responses (for Social Competence, the means were 20.52 for boys and 17.58 for girls; for Physical Competence, the_means were 20.02 for boys and 16.46 for girls; and for General Self-Worth, the means were 20.06 for boys and 18.50 for girls). No significant differences in perceived self-competence were found through multivariate analyses when popular children were compared with average children, or when neglected children were compared with rejected children. Children's Assertive Behavior Scale It was not possible to include all three of the factors Passivity, Aggressiveness, and Nonassertiveness in a multivariate analysis of variance procedure at the same time, because Nonassertiveness is linearly dependent upon 71 Passivity and Aggressiveness. Therefore, MANOVAs and ANOVAs were conducted simultaneously upon the factors Passivity and Aggressiveness, and separate ANOVAs were conducted for the factor Nonassertiveness. MANOVA revealed a significant difference between boys' and girls' responses to the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale, {(2,87) - 5.41, p < .01. The source of this difference was shown by ANOVA to be Aggressiveness, {(1,88) - 10.86, p < .01. Boys had a mean Aggressiveness score of 6.96, whereas girls had a mean Aggressiveness score of 2.90. ' A similar pattern was found when boys with positive sociometric status were compared with girls having positive sociometric status. When MANOVA was computed, a significant difference was found between boys who had positive sociometric status and girls who had positive sociometric status, {(2,39) - 6.53, p < .01. ANOVA showed that this difference was due to Aggressiveness, {(1,40) 8 12.56, p < .01. The mean Aggressiveness scores were 8.00 and 1.62 for boys with positive sociometric status and girls with positive sociometric status, respectively. When children with negative sociometric status were compared, a significant Grade x Sex interaction was found using MANOVA, {(2,39) - 4.07, p < .05. Exploration employing ANOVA showed that this interaction could be attributed to the factor Passivity, {(1,40) = 8.34, p < .01. The means were 10.08, 6.33, 7.34, and 10.42 for the 72 groups fourth-grade males with negative sociometric status, seventh-grade males with negative sociometric status, fourth-grade females with negative sociometric status, and seventh-grade females with negative sociometric status, in that order. When post hoc analyses using the Scheffe' method of multiple comparisons were computed, none of these means were found to be significantly different from one another at the .05 level. ANOVAs performed on the factor Nonassertiveness (non-passivity plus non-aggressiveness) showed that boys' responses on the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale were significantly more passive and/or more aggressive and therefore less assertive than were girls' responses, {(1,88) - 7.20, p < .01. The means were 16.35 and 12.46 for boys and girls, respectively. The responses of boys with positive sociometric status were significantly more Nonassertive (more aggressive and/or more passive and less assertive) than the responses of girls with positive sociometric status, {(1,40) - 10.28, p < .01. Mean scores were 18.58 and 11.88 for boys with positive sociometric status and girls with positive sociometric status, respectively. No significant differences were found in the responses of children with negative sociometric status regarding the amount of assertiveness that they would display in various situations. 73 Efficacy Expectations Scale A significant Group x Grade x Sex interaction was found for children with positive sociometric status versus children with negative sociometric status employing the MANOVA procedure, {(4,85) = 4.23, p < .01. Using ANOVA, the sources of these differences were found to be the factors Passive Efficacy Expectations, {(1,88) - 14.82, p’< .001, and General Efficacy Expectations, F(l,88) - 4.17, p < .05. The means for these factors are displayed in Table 9. Table 9 ' Mean Factor Scores for the Efficacy Expectations Scale Efficacy Expectations Subjects Passive General Positive Sociometric Status Grade 4 Male ' 14.67 96.25 Female 17.67 100.17 Grade 7 Male 15.75 93.17 Female 13.33 92.25 Negative Sociometric Status Grade 4 Male 17.25 103.58 Female 14.33 87.58 Grade 7 Male 14.42 95.50 Female 16.25 98.08 74 When the mean scores for Passive Efficacy Expectations and General Efficacy Expectations were subjected to post hoc analyses employing the Scheffe' method of multiple comparisons, none of the differences between groups were found to be statistically significant at the .05 level. Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions Univariate analysis of variance, rather than multivariate analysis, was employed with the Outcome Expectations Scale for Typical Actions, because only one factor was derived for this scale. ANOVA demonstrated that neglected children had significantly lower Typical 0utCome Expectations than rejected children, §(1,40) - 8.16, p < .01. Mean Typical Outcome Expectation scores were 38.12 ‘ and 43.38 for neglected children and rejected children, respectively. A further examination of this relationship revealed a significant interaction between sociometric group and grade, F(1,40) - 6.22, p < .05. The mean scores were 36.50, 39.75, 46.33, and 40.42 for neglected fourth graders, neglected seventh graders, rejected fourth graders, and rejected seventh graders, respectively. Using post hoc Scheffe' comparisons, it was determined that only the difference between neglected and rejected fourth-grade children was statistically significant at the .05 level. Rejected fourth graders had significantly higher Typical Outcome Expectations than did neglected fourth graders. No 75 significant results were found for this variable when children with positive and negative sociometric status were compared, or when popular and average children were compared. A MANOVA computation performed upon the Typical Reputation scores (Typical PDpular, Average, Neglected and Rejected Reputation scores) revealed the presence of significant differences between neglected and rejected children, §(4,37) - 4.02, p < .01. Subsequent ANOVAs showed that significant differences between neglected and rejected children occurred in the factors Typical Popular Reputation, {(1,40) - 7.66, p < .01, and Typical Average Reputation, {(1,40) - 10.40, p < .01. For Typical Popular Reputation, the mean scores were 0.79 and 2.00 for neglected and rejected children, respectively; for Typical Average Reputation, the mean scores were 4.21 and 2.75 for neglected and rejeCted children, respectively. Attributions Rating Scale Multivariate analyses of variance were performed upon the factors which composed the Attributions Rating Scale: Positive Ability, Negative Ability, Positive Effort, Negative Effort, Positive Other, and Negative Other. MANOVA showed that a significant difference was present in the attributions of boys versus girls, E(6,83) - 2.44, p < .05. ANOVAs were then performed in order to determine 76 which factors were responsible for this difference. Positive Ability was found to be significantly different in the responses of boys and girls, {(1,88) - 5.22, p < .05. The mean Positive Ability scores for boys versus girls were 18.27 and 15.81, respectively. There were no other significant MANOVAs for this instrument. Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions In order to explore the factors composing the Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions, (that is, Various Outcome Expectations, Various Assertive Expectations, Various Aggressive Expectations, and Various Passive Expectations), MANOVAs were performed. Significant differences were found between neglected and rejected children, {(4,37) - 10.01, p < .001. ANOVAs indicated that all four factors composing the Outcome Expectations Scale for Various Actions were responsible for these differences, (for Various Outcome Expectations, {(1,40) 8 7.21, p < .05; for Various Assertive Expectations, §(1,40) - 14.68, p < .001; for Various Aggressive Expectations, §(l,40) - 4.71, p < .05; and for Various Passive Expectations, E(1,40) = 9.10, p < .01). The mean scores for these factors are presented in Table 10. 77 Table 10 Mean Factor Scores for the Outcome Egpectations Scale for Various Kctions ' Subjects Factors Neglected Rejected Various Outcome Expectations 79.67 91.75 Various Assertive Expectations 12.17 14.50 Various Aggressive Expectations 8.79 10.84 Various Passive Expectations 8.30 10.88 From Table 10, it may be seen that neglected children have lower mean scores for outcome expectations related to various actions than do rejected children. Using MANOVA, a significant Group x Grade interaction was found for neglected and rejected children, §(4,37) - 3.87, p < .05. ANOVA indicated that this interaction was due to the factor Various Assertive Expectation, {(1,40) = 12.66, p < .001. Mean scores were 11.42, 12.92, 15.92, and 13.08, for neglected fourth graders, neglected seventh graders, rejected fourth graders, and rejected seventh graders, respectively. Post hoc analyses utilizing the Scheffe' method of multiple comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between fourth- and seventh-grade rejected children, and between fourth-grade neglected and rejected children, at the .05 level of 78 significance. Rejected fourth-grade children had significantly greater Various Assertive Expectations than did either rejected seventh-grade children or neglected fourth-grade children. MANOVAs were also performed upon the reputation scores (Various Popular Reputation, Various Average Reputation, Various Neglected Reputation, and Various Rejected Reputation). MANOVA computations showed that significant differences existed in the reputation scores of fourth and seventh grade children. ANOVAs showed that these differences were due to Various Papular Reputation, {(1,88) - 5.86, p < .05, and Various Average Reputation, §(l,88) - 15.19, p < .001. The mean scores for Various Popular Reputation were 2.40 and 1.21 for fourth graders and seventh graders, respectively. The means for Various Average Reputation were 6.84 and 9.29 for fourth-grade children and seventh-grade children, in that order. Various Popular Reputation scores were greater in fourth grade than in seventh grade, while Various Average Reputation scores were greater in seventh grade than in fourth grade. MANOVA computations revealed significant differences between fourth- and seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status, E(4,37) - 2.98, p < .05. These differences were due to Various Average Reputation scores, §(1,40) - 8.49, p < .01, and Various Neglected Reputation scores, {(1,40) - 5.59, p < .05, according to ANOVA 79 computations. For Various Average Reputation, the mean scores were 6.96 and 9.50 for fourth- and seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status, respectively. For Various Neglected Reputation, means were 1.79 and 0.75 for fourth- and seventh-grade children having negative sociometric status, in that order. Fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status expected Various Average Reputations less than seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status did, while fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status expected Various Neglected Reputations more than seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status did. When neglected children were contrasted with rejected children, MANOVAs revealed a significant Group x Grade interaction, E(4,37) a 4.05, p < .01. Univariate analysis of variance showed that this interaction was due to Various P0pular Reputation, {(1,40) - 7.94, p < .01. The mean scores for Various Popular Reputation were 0.75, 1.58, 4133, and 1.34 for neglected fourth graders, neglected seventh graders, rejected fourth graders, and rejected seventh graders, respectively. Post hoc Scheffe' comparisons showed that the differences between rejected fourth and seventh graders, and the differences between neglected and rejected fourth graders, were significant at the .05 level. More rejected fourth-grade children expected Various Popular Reputations than did rejected seventh-grade children or neglected fourth-grade children. 8O Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children As this instrument yields one factor score (External ' Locus of Control), univariate analyses of variance were used in order to analyze the Locus of Control Scale data. ANOVAs indicated that fourth-grade children had greater External Locus of Control than seventh-grade children, .§(1:54) - 25.22, p < .001. Means were 19.25 and 14.42 for fourth-grade children and seventh-grade children, respectively. Fourth-grade children with positive sociometric status had greater External Locus of Control than seventh-grade children with positive sociometric status, {(1,22) - 6.09, p < .05. Means were 18.31 and 13.98 for fourth-grade children with positive sociometric status and seventh-grade children with positive sociometric, respectively. Fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status had greater External Locus of Control than seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status, {(1,24) - 21.49, p < .001, with means of 20.14 and 14.89 for fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status and seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status, respectively. No significant differences were found between any of the sociometric groups of children in External Locus of Control. 81 Young Children's Social Desirability Scale This instrument was analyzed with univariate analyses of variance, as it yields one factor score (Social Desirability). ANOVAs indicated that children with positive sociometric status gave significantly less socially desirable answers than children with negative sociometric status, {(1,42) = 4.12, p < .05. Mean Social Desirability scores were 5.32 and 8.12 for children with positive sociometric status and children with negative sociometric status, in that order. There were no significant differences in the amount of socially desirable answers given by popular children as compared to average children, or by neglected children as compared to rejected children. Self-Statement Instrument Locus pf Control Codes Self-perception questions. MANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference in the self-perception locus of control codes between fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status and seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status, {(3,38) - 3.98, p < .05. ANOVA clarified that the difference was due to Dual Locus of Control, F(1,40) - 10.99, p < .01. Fourth-grade ll 82 children with negative sociometric status had mean Dual Locus of Control scores of 0.33, while seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status had mean Dual Locus of Control scores of 1.33. Attribution questions. There were no significant differences in the attribution locus of control codes found when MANOVA was employed. Outcome expectations questions. A significant difference in the outcome expectation locus of control codes of fourth-grade versus seventh-grade children was indicated byMANOVA computations, §(3,84) - 2°91’.E < .04. This difference was due to External Locus of Control, according to ANOVA, {(1,86) - 4.13, p < .05. Means were 1.23 for fourth-grade children and 0.75 for seventh-grade children. Response Type Codes Self-perception questions. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed a significant Group x Sex interaction when children with positive sociometric status were compared to children with negative sociometric status, {(16,71) - 1.87, p < .05. Univariate analyses of variance showed that two factors contributed to the significance of this interaction: Desire to Maintain Friendship, §(1,86) = 83 6.21, p < .05, and Sorry, E(1,86) = 4.24, p < .05. The mean scores for these factors are presented in Table 11. Table 11 Mean Factor Scores for the Self-Perception Response Type Codes Factors Desire to Subjects Maintain Friendship Sorry POsitive SociometriE Status Boys 0.26 0.14 Girls 0.18 0.34 Negative Sociometric Status Boys 0.00 0.13 Girls 0.29 0.04 Post hoc analyses employing the Scheffe' technique at the .05 level of significance were conducted for each factor. These analyses indicated that for Desire to Maintain Friendship, only the difference between boys and girls with negative sociometric status was statistically significant. For Sorry, only the difference between girls with positive sociometric status and girls with negative sociometric status was significant. Girls with negative sociometric status spoke of their desire to maintain friendship with another child significantly more than boys with negative 84 sociometric status. Girls with positive sociometric status spoke of feeling regret for negative scenarios significantly more than girls with negative sociometric status . MANOVAs showed a significant difference between neglected and rejected children in their responses to the open-ended self-perception questions, {(15,26) = 2.14, p < .05. Subsequent ANOVAs indicated that this difference was due to the category Sorry, {(1,40) = 4.44, p < .05. Means were 0.17 for neglected children and 0.00 for rejected children. ' Further analyses employing MANOVA revealed that significant differences existed between fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status and seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status in their responses to the open-ended self-perception questions, §(15,26) - 2.27, p < .05. ANOVAs demonstrated that these differences were due to the following categories: Positive Affect, {(1,40) 8 5.29, p < .05; Agreement, {(1,40) = 4.80, p < .05; Desire to Maintain Friendship, E(l,40) = 5.43, p < .05; and Disagreement, {(1,40) = 11.57, p < .01. When fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status were compared to seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status, mean scores for fourth- and seventh-grade children were 0.08 and 0.34 for Positive Affect, 0.21 and 0.50 for Agreement, 0.04 and 0.25 for Desire to Maintain Friendship, and 0.04 and 0.42 for 85 Disagreement, in that order. Older children with negative sociometric status spoke about each of the aforementioned concepts more than younger children with negative sociometric status. Attribution questions. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed significant differences between boys with positive sociometric status and girls with positive sociometric status in their responses to the Open-ended attribution questions, §(19,20) 8 3.88, p < .01. Univariate analyses of variance showed that these differences were due to the categories Disagreement, {(1,38) = 7.50, p < .01, Relationship Termination, {(1,38) - 13.15, p < .001, and Dissimilar, E(1,38) = 5.99, p < .05. For boys with positive sociometric status and girls with positive sociometric status, mean scores were 1.0 and 0.74 for Disagreement, 0.70 and 0.22 for Relationship Termination, and 0.05 and 0.29 for Dissimilar, in that order. Boys with positive sociometric status made more attributions to Disagreement and Relationship Termination than did girls with positive sociometric status, while girls with positive sociometric status made more attributions to Dissimilar than did boys with positive sociometric status. Outcome expectation qpestions. MANOVAs did not indicate that there were significant differences between 86 any of the groups in their open-ended responses to the outcome expectation questions. Summary of Results As hypothesized, children with positive sociometric status had greater social and cognitive perceived competence than did children with negative sociometric status. Contrary to eXpectations, pOpular and average children did not perceive themselves to be more assertive than did either neglected or rejected children. Neglected children did not perceive themselves as being more passive than did other children, nor did rejected children perceive themselves as being more aggressive than did other children. Contrary to hypotheses, children with positive sociometric status did not differ from children with negative sociometric status in attributions or expectations. However, rejected children displayed a consistent pattern of greater outcome expectations than neglected children. Children with positive sociometric status displayed less social desirability bias than children with negative sociometric status. As expected, few significant differences were found between children of different grade levels who were members of the same sociometric group. As predicted, perceived social competence did not vary with grade level. Younger children's outcome expectations were greater than those of 87 older children, and younger rejected children displayed the greatest outcome expectations of any group. Younger children displayed greater external locus of control than did older children. Older children with negative sociometric status discussed relationship-enhancing concepts significantly more than younger children with negative sociometric status. Contrary to expectations, olderneglected children did not appear to be more similar than younger neglected children to same-age children with positive sociometric status in their metacognitions. Contrary to expectations, boys perceived themselves to be more socially competent than did girls.- Boys also perceived themselves to be more physically competent and to have greater general self-worth than did girls. As predicted, boys perceived themselves as being more aggressive than did girls; however, when the interaction of sociometric group and sex was explored, boys and girls with positive sociometric status were found to differ in perceived aggressiveness, whereas boys and girls with negative sociometric status did not differ in perceived aggressiveness. Boys did not have greater efficacy and outcome expectations for aggressive actions than did girls. Boys attributed positive outcomes to ability more than did girls. DISCUSSION Increasing Knowledge about Children's Metacognitions The information obtained from this study contributes to our knowledge of children's self metacognitions related to social situations, and to our understanding of the variations in metacognitions among children of different sociometric groups, grade levels and sexes. According to Butler and Meichenbaum (1981), "little attention has been devoted to (metacognitive) variables in the interpersonal' problem-solving field" (p. 219). Asher, Hymel, and Renshaw (1984) cited the lack of data about the perspective of children with low sociometric status regarding their own situation. The present reSearch represents a step toward "the development of a cognitive ethology that will help us to describe the content, frequency, and most important, patterning of self statements, thoughts, and images that accompany behavior and contribute to individual differences in performance in a variety of situations" (Meichenbaum, Butler, & Gruson, 1981, p. 42). The multiplicity of results of this study show the importance of examining children's self-related social metacognitions in a variety 88 89 of areas. In the area of self-perception metacognitions, children with positive sociometric status evidenced greater perceived social and cognitive competence than children with negative sociometric status, as predicted. Boys perceived themselves to have greater physical competence and general self-worth than girls perceived themselves to have, replicating the results of Bukowski and Newcomb (1983). Unexpectedly, boys also perceived themselves to be more socially competent than girls perceived themselves to be. However, as noted by Bukowski and Newcomb (1983), items on the Social Competence subscale of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children emphasize the type of interpersonal relationships that boys would be more likely to engage in than would girls, that is, group rather than individual relationships. Therefore, the finding that boys have greater perceived social competence than girls might have been instrument-specific. Boys perceived themselves as acting more aggressively than did girls, in accordance with the hypotheses presented in the Introduction, while girls perceived themselves as acting more assertively than boys. The finding of greater assertiveness in girls than in boys is probably related to the fact that every question in the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale is followed by five options along a passive-assertive-aggressive continuum. The selection of an aggressively-oriented item precludes the selection of an 90 assertively-oriented item. Hence, the greater assertiveness of girls should be considered in the context of this instrument's design. When boys and girls of the same sociometric status were compared, boys with positive sociometric status perceived themselves as being more aggressive than girls with positive sociometric status; however, boys and girls with negative sociometric status did not differ in their perceived aggressiveness. Rejected children, who have been found to be more aggressive behaviorally than other groups of children and who have more aggressive reputations among their peers, did not perceive themselves as being more aggressive than other groups, nor did neglected children perceive themselves to be more passive than other groups of children. These findings suggest that children with negative sociometric - status may not perceive their actions as being different in aggressiveness or passivity from that of their peers. Perceived aggressiveness and passivity may be areas in which metacognitive intervention would be useful for children with negative sociometric status, as will be discussed later. The tendency of children with negative sociometric status to give more socially desirable answers than children of positive sociometric status may also be contributing to the lack of significant differences between children of different sociometric status in perceived aggressiveness and passivity. In their responses to the open-ended self-perception 91 questions, seventh-grade children with negative sociometric status discussed more relationship-enhancing concepts than did fourth-grade children with negative sociometric status (e.g., positive affect, agreement, and desire to maintain friendship). Older children with negative sociometric status appeared to be more concerned with relationship-enhancing concepts than younger children with negative sociometric status, as would be expected from research on the development of children's cognitions about friendship relations (c.f., Bigelow, 1977; Selman, Jaquette, & Lavin, 1977). However, this developmental difference in the discussion of relationship-enhancing concepts was not found in children with positive sociometric status. One possible hypothesis for the lack of difference among children of positive sociometric status as compared to children of negative sociometric status at different ages is that children with positive sociometric status discussed these concepts at the younger developmental level as well as the older developmental level, whereas children with negative sociometric status did not. An examination of the mean scores of the groups confirmed this hypothesis. The developmental differences in children with negative sociometric status in their concern with relationship-enhancing concepts as compared to children with positive sociometric status imply that intervention in children's awareness and understanding of- the factors which enhance peer relationships may be a way 92 of increasing the effectiveness of social skills training programs. As responses concerning relationship-enhancing concepts are not self-perceptions per se, this data shows that the area of children's conceptions about friendship is an area which should be explored in greater depth with regard to children's sociometric status. In the area of expectations, rejected children displayed a consistent pattern of greater outcome expectations for both typical and various actions than did neglected children, in spite of receiving more negative role nominations from their peers. Younger children had greater outcome expectations than older children. Rejected fourth-grade children's outcome expectations were greater than those of any other group of children.- The outcome expectation results support the need to examine the metacognitions of children with neglected sociometric status separately from the metacognitions of children with rejected sociometric status. No relationship was found between the efficacy expectations of children and their sociometric status, whereas relationships were found between children's outcome expectations and their sociometric status. These findings suggest that different, types of expectations may function in different ways to mediate behavior, and/or may result from different types of interpersonal relationships. The discrepancy between efficacy and outcome expectation results demonstrates that efficacy and outcome expectations should be examined 93 separately from one another. It is important to note that children with negative sociometric status gave more socially desirable answers than children with positive sociometric status. The tendency of children with negative sociometric status to give more socially desirable answers than their positive status counterparts may mean that the differences between the true metacognitions of children with positive and negative sociometric status were actually greater than were shown by their responses to these instruments. Overall, the results of this study showed that the greatest number of significant differences between groups of children in general occurred in self-perception metacognitions, followed in frequency of significant, results by expectational metacognitions and attributional- metacognitions, in that order. By definition, self-perceptions are metacognitions which may influence children's relationships with others prior to, during, or following their interpersonal interactions, and thus have the greatest opportunity of any type of metacognition to influence children's social interactions. Metacognitive expectations, which.occur prior to action, would be less likely than self-perceptions to influence social interactions. Metacognitive expectations would be more likely to influence interpersonal interactions than would metacognitive attributions, which occur after action. The availability of the type of metacognition for mediation of 94 social interactions corresponded to the frequency with which significant differences between sociometric groups were found. When taken together, information about children's self-related metacognitions, when compared to observational data about children's behavior, may be useful in deriving hypotheses about the ways in which children's metacognitions function to influence their behavior, and vice versa. For example, variations in children's self-perceptions, expectations, and attributions may affect their utilization of behavioral scripts. (See Schank and Abelson, 1977, for a discussion of script theory.) Neglected children, with their low outcome expectations for ’ actions, may rarely utilize their scripted knowledge in peer interactions, although their scripted knowledge may be appropriate for these interactions. In contrast, rejected children, with their high outcome expectations for actions, may frequently utilize their scripted knowledge for peer interactions--scripted knowledge which may be maladaptive for peer relationships. Incorporation of Metacognitive Intervention into Social Skills Training Programs Information about children's self-related metacognitions, such as the data obtained in the present study, may be beneficial to incorporate into social skills 95 training programs for children. Social skills training programs aimed at ameliorating the behavioral and knowledge components of the social interactions of children with negative sociometric status have been only moderately successful in improving peer relationships (Allen, 1981; Hymel & Asher, 1977; Ladd, 1981; Oden & Asher, 1977). One possible avenue for increasing the effectiveness of social skills training programs would be to combine behavioral, knowledge, and metacognitive elements in social skills intervention. According to Mahoney (1974), "complex belief-behavior interdependence suggests that therapeutic strategies which focus on only one of theSe chain elements may seriously jeopardize the speed, extent, and duration of their positive impact" (p. 224). Hops and Greenwood (1981) have suggested that intervention in areas other than that' of primary concern (social behavior or knowledge) may be responsible for the effectiveness of the successful intervention programs. Glogower, Fremouw, and McCroskey (1978) found that coping self-statements replaced negative self-statements for subjects in several of their treatment groups following treatment. They hypothesized that changes of this type may be an underlying factor in the effectiveness of many types of treatment, whether or not the treatments directly intervene in the area of self-statements. Many researchers (e.g., Yule, 1981) believe that children's cognitions are an important part of treatment, and perhaps essential to treatment. For 96 example, Glass, Gottman, and Schmurak (1976) demonstrated that therapeutically modifying self-statements was an effective method of reducing non-assertiveness. Clearly, incorporating metacognitive components into social skills training programs is an area which warrants further exploration. Research such as the present study can provide an empirical basis for determining what type of metacognitive intervention would be most likely to be effective in such programs. (This by no means implies that intervention in children's metacognitions is the only way of improving children's social skills. A variety of other methods of intervention, for example, teaching the target child's peers to interact with the target child in ways which will increase the target child's likelihood of acquiring desirable social skills, are equally valid possibilities for improving social skills training methods. However, the discussion of other possible intervention methods is beyond the scope of the present study.) Increasing the Specificity of Social Skills Training Programs The application of the results of this study to social skills training programs may lead to greater treatment effectiveness for children with problematic peer relationships by providing information which would lead to 97 greater treatment specificity for the individual subjects or subgroups of subjects involved in the social skills training. Hops and Greenwood (1981) called for research aimed at identifying the precise variables which may account for the long-term success of social skills training programs, as "isolation of more effective components may lead to shorter duration, cost-effective interventions that produce greater long-term effects" (p. 354). The present research may be used to increase the specificity of social skills training programs in several ways. Specificity of social skills training programs may be increased by incorporating into programs the metacognitions which differentiate children with positive sociometric status from children with negative sociometric status, and taking into account the ways in which these metacognitions vary according to the age and sex of the children. For example, children with positive sociometric status had higher perceived social and cognitive competence than children with negative sociometric status. Therefore, increasing perceived social and cognitive competence may be important facets to incorporate into social skills training programs for children with negative sociometric status in general. Girls with negative sociometric status perceived themselves as acting as aggressively as boys with negative sociometric status; girls with positive sociometric status perceived themselves as acting less aggressively than boys with positive sociometric status. These differences 98 indicate that intervention in the area of aggressiveness may be needed by girls and/or boys with negative sociometric status. Comparison of age and sex differences in children with positive and negative sociometric status may provide clues as to which age and sex differences in children are inappropriate and may need intervention. Increments in the specificity of social skills training programs may be achieved through programmatic inclusion of the types of metacognitions which distinguish children with different types of negative sociometric status from one another, i.e. neglected and rejected children. An example of such a distinction would be the greater outcome expectations of rejected children as compared to neglected children. Variations such as this are indicative of ways in which neglected children may need different types of metacognitive intervention than rejected children. In addition, neglected and rejected children's needs for intervention may vary according to their age and sex. For example, the rejected fourth-grade children had the greatest outcome expectations of any group, and may have the greatest need for intervention in this area of any group of children. Areas in which specific treatment intervention may be needed might be indicated by disparity between children's metacognitions and their reputations and behaviors. For example, rejected children did not perceive themselves to be more aggressive than other groups of children, yet are 99 more aggressive in both reputation and behavior. Neglected children did not perceive themselves as more passive than other groups, but are more passive in description and behavior. Findings such as these suggest specific areas where intervention may be needed to increase the accuracy of the metacognitions of children with negative sociometric status. The present research shows that specific types of metacognitions may not distinguish different sociometric groups of children. Few significant differences were found between sociometric groups when using the efficacy expectations and attributions scales, for example. Such results intimate that intervention in certain metacognitive areas may not be of primary importance to include in social skills training programs incorporating metacognitive intervention. The present research identifies specific types of metacognitions which may not be necessary to include in treatment programs because they vary according to age and/or sex in all children. Intervention in metacognitions which differ in accordance with the age and/or sex of all children may not be beneficial to incorporate into social skills training programs, as these metacognitions may be typical differences among children. In addition, differences in the metacognitions of children with negative sociometric status may change naturally with age, so that intervention may not be necessary at more advanced 100 developmental levels, or may not be necessary at all. For example, differences in the outcome expectations of neglected and rejected children were smaller in subjects at the older developmental level than at the younger developmental level. Therefore, outcome expectations may not require intervention in older children. Intervention in outcome expectations may not be necessary in younger children as well as older children if outcome expectations are naturally self-correcting. On the other hand, intervention in the outcome expectations of younger children may accelerate the natural process of outcome expectation development and facilitate treatment effectiveness. Future Directions Further exploration of children's self-perceptions, expectations, and attributions along the lines of the present research is needed in order to provide confirmation of the findings of this study. One question which arises is whether the variations in children of different ages found in this study are actually developmental trends or merely an artifact of the particular grade levels selected for this study. Another question is whether the results found using the instruments constructed for the purposes of this study will be replicated in other studies, or were spurious effects due to the as yet untested reliability and 101 validity of these instruments. Areas in which relationships between children's metacognitions and behavior were found will need further exploration in the future in order to clarify the reasons for the relationships' existence. For example, children with positive sociometric status were found to have greater perceived social competence than children with negative sociometric status. However, the reasons for this finding were not explored in the present study. Future studies are needed to clarify the ways in which perceived social competence is related to children's sociometric status, for example, whether or not greater perceived social competence increases a child's likelihood to initiate interactions with other children, or to be perceived as more approachable by other children, etc. In areas where relationships between children's metacognitions and behavior were not observed to exist, the reasons for the lack of relationships need to be examined. More studies are needed in order to assess whether the lack of relationships between metacognition and behavior were indeed due to the weak relationship between cognitions and behavior (as discussed in the Introduction), or whether the lack of relationships may have been due to a variety of other factors, including: (a) children's inability to observe or reflect upon certain things about themselves due to their age or the formats used for data-gathering; (b) the insensitivity of the instruments in capturing the 102 metacognitive variations in children of different sociometric groups; (c) the selection of subjects who were actually very similar to one another in their sociometric status--the children who participated in the study were attending public school, and most of these children are expected to function satisfactorily throughout their lives without intervention, irregardless of their sociometric status among their classmates; and (d) the rigor of the statistical methods selected for data analyses, for example, the Scheffe' method of multiple comparisons. The present research suggests a number of other issues which will need to be addressed in future studies of children's metacognitions. The reliability and validity of the instruments designed specifically for this study have not yet been explored. The relationship between children's metacognitions and their behavior was not examined directly in this study. Nor did this study address the complex issue of the reciprocal relationship between metacognitions and behavior, that is, the way in which behavior influences metacognition as well as being influenced by metacognition. Whether or not incorporating intervention in children's metacognitions into social skills training programs will actually increase the effectiveness of these programs, and if so, what types of metacognitive intervention will be most beneficial, remain to be seen. Finally, whether or not assessment instruments such as those employed here may eventually be useful as pre- and 103 post-intervention measures in social skills training programs is as yet unknown. Green and Forehand (1980) stated that "the use of children's self-reports has been almost nonexistent" (p. 155) in social skills assessment to date. The results of the present study indicate that the development of metacognitive assessment instruments and the examination of their usefulness as assessment devices in social skills training programs may also be a fruitful direction for researchers to consider. Although the present study was exploratory in nature, the results of this study suggest that children of different sociometric status differ in certain self-related metacognitions. The area of children's self-related metac0gnitions appears to be a very promising Sphere for future research, with exciting possible applications to social skills training programs. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER TO PARENTS AND PERMISSION SLIP 104 APPENDIX A LETTER TO PARENTS AND PERMISSION SLIP Dear Parents: My colleagues and I in the Psychology Department at Michigan State University have been studying the importance of peer relations for healthy social and emotional adjustment and children's understanding of their interactions with their peers. Mr. School Principal, of the Recruited Elementary School, has kindly agreed to work with us, and we would like to request permission for your numeral grade child to join our project. The study will involve one sixty-minute in-class session, and one thirty-minute individual session, conducted at the school and supervised by researchers from the University. During these sessions, the participating children in your child s classroom will be asked to complete a questionnaire and participate in an interview. In particular, we will be asking each child to tell us who are their friends, and who they least like to play with, the best roles for their classmates in a class play, how they think about themselves in social situations, their expectations for interactions with their peers, the reasons why they feel hypothetical interactions turned out the way they did, and their goals and strategies related to social situations. The children find these questions interesting and they are asked not to discuss their answers with their classmates. It is anticipated that the information collected in this study will be useful to educators in planning group learning experiences and to professionals in helping children lay more successfull with other children. In our exper ence, the children find the questionnaires fun to complete, and their teachers have suggested that learning to complete forms like these is a good learning experience. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the study and to request permission for your child to participate. All information collected in this study will be treated with complete anonymity and confidentiality, and all written reports of the results will present only grou trends. During the completion of the study, children wil be identified only by a numbered code, and at the conclusion of the study all questionnaire and interview information will be destroyed. You are of course free to request additional explanation of the study at any time, 105 both before and after your child participates. Also, both you and your child are free to terminate your participation in the study at any time, if you desire to do so. We h0pe that you will agree to your child's participation in this project. Please fill out and sign the attached form if you are freely willing to give your consent for your child to participate, and have your child return the form to school tomorrow. If you agree to your child's participation, the general nature of the project will be explained to him/her, and he/she will also be asked ‘to participate. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)-355-1832 or Julie Juenemann at (313)-771-6001, and we will try to answer them directly. At the conclusion of the study you will receive a summary of the findings. Sincerely, Andrew F. Newcomb, Ph.D. 106 MSU SOCIAL RELATIONS STUDY PERMISSION SLIP This study has been explained to me, and I understand the explanation that has been given, and what my child's participation will involve. I do or do not agree to let participate in the study of children's peer relations. Date Parent's signature Please have your son/daughter return this slip tomorrow. Thank you. APPENDIX B ASSENT FORM FOR CHILDREN 107 APPENDIX B ASSENT FORM FOR CHILDREN MSU Social Relations Study PERMISSION FORM This study has been explained to me and I am willing to participate in it. My name is My teacher's name is APPENDIX C SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONNAIRE 108 APPENDIX C SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONNAIRE Write the names of the three numeral-grade boys/girls that you like the most. 1) 2) 3) Write the names of the three numeral-grade boys/girls that you like the least. 1) 2) 3) Note. Seventh-grade students were provided with a roster of all of the same-sex same-grade children attending the middle school whose parents had given permission for them to participate in the study. They were instructed to confine their choices to this roster. In place of a list of most- and least-liked peers, the fourth-grade students were provided with a 2-page booklet. The first page of the booklet was headed "Circle the names of the three boys/girls that you like the most". The second page of the booklet was headed "Circle the names of the three boys/girls that you like the least". Both of the pages of the booklet were followed by a list of all of the same-sex children in their classroom who had parental permission to participate in the study. The fourth graders were instructed to circle the names of the appropriate children on each page. This procedure simplified the task for the fourth-grade students, while the methodology remained essentially the same for both grades. APPENDIX D CLASS PLAY INVENTORY 109 APPENDIX D CLASS PLAY INVENTORY The next thing we would like you to do is to pretend that the numeral-graders are going to have a play, and that you have been chosen as the director. As the director, you must think of the numeral-grade boy/girl who can best play each part. You can pick any numeral-grade boy/girl in your classroom/at the middle school. On the line next to each part, write the name of a boy/girl who you think could best play the part. N exubw \l lO. 11. 12. Someone who is liked by everybody. Someone who is often afraid and who acts like a little kid. Someone who tries to help everybody. Someone who is a mean, cruel boss. Someone who is good at sports. Someone who is stuck-up and thinks they are better than everybody else. . Someone who should be class president. Someone who is selfish. Someone who is smart and usually knows the answers. Someone who causes alot of trouble in class. Someone who acts as team captain. Someone who acts sad. 110 13. Someone who is very good looking. 14. Someone who picks on smaller kids. Note. Seventh-grade students were provided with a roster of all of the same-sex same-grade children attending the middle school whose parents had given permission for them to participate in the study. They were instructed to confine their choices to this roster. In place of the list of 14 roles, the fourth-grade students were provided with a l4-page booklet. Each of the pages of the booklet was headed by one of the 14 roles listed above, followed by a list of all of the same-sex children in their classroom who had parental permission to participate in the study. The fourth graders were instructed to circle the name of the child on each page who they thought could best play the part on the top of the page. This procedure simplified the task for the fourth-grade students, while the methodology remained essentially the same for both grades. APPENDIX E PERCEIVED COMPETENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN (Harter, 1979) 111 APPENDIX E PERCEIVED COMPETENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CHILD We have some sentences here and, as you can see from the top of your sheet where it says "What I am like," we are interested in what each of you is like, what kind of a person you are like, and how you think and feel about different things. This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. Since kids are very different from one ' another, each of you will be putting down something different. First let me explain how these questions work. There are two sample questions at the top. I'll read the first one out loud, which is marked (a), and you follow along with me. (Examiner reads first sample question.) This question talks about two kinds of kids. (1) What I want you to decide first is whether you are more like the kids on the Ieft side who would rather play Outdoors, or whether you are more like the kids on the right side who would rather watch- T.V. Don't mark anything down yet, but first decide which kind of kid is most like you, and go to that side. ’ (2) Now, the second thing I want you to think about, now that you Have decided which kind of kid is most like you, is to decide whether that is only sort of true for you, or really true. If it's only sort E: true, then put an in the box under sort of true; if it's really true for you, then put an X_In that box, under really true. (3) For each sentence you only check one box. Sometimes it will be on one side 5f_tHE_page, and other times it will be on the other side of the page, but you can only check one box for each sentence. Do you have any questions? (4) OK, let's try the second sample one, which is (b). (Examiner reads and goes through the same explanation above in points 1, 2, and 3.) (5) OK, those were just for practice. Now we have some more sentences which I'm going to read out loud. For each one, just check one box, the one that goes with what is true for you, what you are most like. REALLY SORT OF TRUE TRUE for me for me D. .[_—_” F—_‘ [::; 112 WHAT I AM LIKE Some kids would rather play outdoors in their Spare time. Some kids feel that they are very good at their school work. Some kids find it hard to make friends. Some kids do very well at all kinds of sports. Some kids feel that there are alot of things about them- selves that they would change if they could. Some kids feel like they are just as smart as other kids their age. Some kids have alot of friends. Other kids would rather watch T.V. Other kids worry about whether they can do the school work assigned to them. For other kids it's pretty easy. Other's don't feel that they are very good when it comes to sports. Other kids would like to stay pretty much the same. Other kids aren't so sure and wonder if they are as smart. Other kids don't have very many friends. SORT OF REALLY TRUE TRUE for me for me .__J :J _ REALLY TRUE for me 10 ll. 12. 13. 15. ] L_] V! LJI F] 113 SORT OF TRUE for me Ill Some kids wish they could be alot better at sports. Some kids are pretty sure of themselves. Some kids are pretty slow in finishing their school work. Some kids don't think they are a very important member of their class. Some kids think they could do well at just about any new out- door activity they haven't tried before. Some kids feel good about the way they act. Some kids often forget what they learn. Some kids are always doing things with alot of kids. Some kids feel that they are better than others their age at sports. SORT OF REALLY for me Other kids feel they are good enough. Other kids are not very sure of themselves. Other kids can do their school work quickly. Other kids think they are pretty important to their classmates. Other kids are afraid they might not do well at out- door things they haven't ever tried. Other kids wish they acted differently. Other kids can remember things easily. Other kids usually do things by themselves. Other kids don't feel they can play as well. TRUE for me ‘—x —— REALLY TRUE for me l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. L LJ _Jf| L 114 SORT OF TRUE for me ‘ Some kids think that maybe they are not a very good person. Some kids like school because they do well in class. Some kids wish that more kids liked them. In games and sports some kids usually watch instead of play. Some kids are very happy being the way they are. Some kids wish it was easier to understand what they read. Some kids are popular with others their age. Some kids don't do well at new out- door games. Some kids aren't very happy with the way they do alot of things. SORT OF REALLY TRUE TRUE for me for me Other kids are pretty sure that they are a good person. Other kids don't like school because they aren't doing very well. Others feel that most kids do like them. Other kids usually play rather than just watch. Other kids wish they were different. Other kids don't have any trouble understanding what they read. Other kids are not very popular. Other kids are 1 good at new games right away. Other kids ‘ think the way they do things is fine. 115 REALLY SORT OF SORT OF REALLY TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE for me for me for me for me 25. Some kids Other kids '———w have trouble almost always I figuring out can figure out ____ the answers the answers. in school. 26. Some kids are Other kids are really easy kind of hard to like. to like. 27. Some kids are Other kids are -——- among the last usually picked l I -——— to be chosen first. for games. 28. Some kids are Other kids usually sure that what they are doing is the right thing. aren't so sure whether or not they are doing the right thing. APPENDIX F CHILDREN'S ASSERTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE (Wood & Michelson, 1978b) 1. 116 APPENDIX F CHILDREN'S ASSERTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE Someone says to you, "I think you are a very nice person." You would usually: (a) Say, "No, I'm not that nice." (b) Say, "Yes, I think I am the best!" (c) Say, "Thank you." (d) Say nothing and blush. (e) Say, "Thanks, I am really great." Someone does something that you think is really great. You would usually: ‘ (a) Act like it wasn't that great and say, "That was alright." (b) Say, "That was alright, but I've seen better." (c) Say nothing. (d) Say, ”I can do much better that that!” (e) Say, "That was really great!" You are working on something you like and think it very good. Someone says, "I don t like it!" You would usually: (a) Say, "You're a dummy!" (b) Say, "I think it's good.” ' (c) Say, "You are right," although you don't really agree. (d) Say, "I think this is great; besides what do you know!" (e) Feel hurt and say nothing. You forget something you were supposed to bring and someone says, "You're so dumb! You'd forget your head if it weren't screwed on!" You would usually: (a) Say,k"I'm"smarter than you any day; besides what do you now. (b) Say, "Yes, you're right, sometimes I do act dumb." (c) Say, "If anybody is dumb, it's you!" (d) Say, "Nobody's perfect. I'm not dumb just because I forgot something!" (e) Say nothing or ignore it. 117 Someone you were supposed to meet arrives 30 minutes late, which makes you upset. The person says nothing about why they are late. You would usually: (a) Say, “I'm upset that you kept me waiting like 8. (b) Say, "I was wondering when you'd get here." (c) Say, "This is the last time I'll wait for you!” (d) Say nothing to the erson. (e) Say, "You're a jerk. You're late!" You need someone to do something for you. You would usually: (a) Not ask for anything to be done. (b) Say, "You gotta do this for me!" (c) Say, "Would you please do something for me?" and then explain what you want. (d) Give a small hint that you need something done. (e) Say, "I want you to do this for me." Someone asks you to do something which would keep you from doing what you really want to do. You would usually: (a) Say,nI did have other plans, but I'll do what you want. ' (b) Say, "No way! Find someone else." (c; Say, "OK, I'll do what you want." Say, "Forget it, shove off!" (e) Sig, xI've already made other plans, maybe next t e. ' You see someone you would like to meet. You would usually: (a) Yell at the person and tell them to come over to you. ‘ (b) Walk over to the person, introduce yourself, and start talking. (c) Walk over near the person and wait for him to talk' to you. (d) Walk over to the person and start talking about great things you have done. (e) Not say anything to the person. Someone you haven't met before stops and says "hello" to you. You would usually: Egg Say, "What do you want?" Not say anything. (C) Say, "Don't bother me. Get lost!" (d) Say "hello," introduce yourself, and ask who they are. 118 (e) Nod your head, say "hi," and walk away. 10. You know that someone is feeling upset. You would 11. 12. 13. usually: (3) Say, "You seem upset; can I help?" (b) Be with them and not talk about their being upset. (c) Say. "What's wrong with you?" (d) Not say anything and leave them alone. (e) Laugh and say, "You're just a big baby!" You are feeling upset, and someone says, "You seem upset." (a) Turn Eb) say, c) Say, d s , (a) 82;. You would usually: your head away or say nothing. 'It's none of your business! "Yes, I am upset, thank you for asking." "It's nothing." "I'm upset, leave me alone." Someone else makes a mistake and someone blames it on you. You would usually: (a) Say, "You're crazy!" (b) Say, "That wasn't my fault; someone else made the mistake." (c) Say, "I don't think it was my fault." (d) Say, "Wasn't me, you don't know what you're talking about!" ‘ (e) Take the blame or say nothing. Someone asks you to do somethin , but you don't know why it has to be done. You wouId usually: (a) Say, "This doesn't make any sense, I don't want to do it. (b) Do what they ask and say nothing; (c) Say, "This is dumb, I'm not going to do it!" (d) Before doing it, say "I don't understand why you want this done." (e) Say, "If that's what you want” and then do it. . Someone says to you they think that something you did was terrific. You would usually: 2:; (e) Say. d "Yes, I usually do better than most." "No, that wasn t so hot.". "That's right, because I'm the best." "Thank you." Sa (e) Ignore it and say nothing. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 119 Someone has been very nice to you. You would usually: (a) Say, "You have been really nice to me, thanks." (b) Act like they weren't that nice and say, "Yea, thanks." (c) Say, "You have treated me alright, but I deserve even better." (d) Ignore it and say nothing. (e) Say, "You don't treat me good enough!" You are talking very loudly with a friend and someone says, "Excuse me, but you are being too noisy." You would usually: (a) Stop talking immediately. (b) Sayfii"1f1yogldon't like it, get lost!" and keep on ta ng ou y. (c) Say, "I'm sorry, I'll talk quietly" and then talk in a quiet voice. (d) Say, 'I'm sorry" and stop talking. (e) Say, "Alright" and continue to talk loudly. You are waiting in line and someone steps in front of you. You would usually: (a) Make quiet comments such as, "Some people have a lot of nerve," without actually saying anything directly to the person. (b) Say, "Get to the end of the line!" (c) Say nothing to the person. (d) Say loudly, "Get out of this line you creep!" (e) Say, 31 was here first; please go to the end of the ne. Someone does something to you that you don't like and it makes you angry. You would usually: (a) Shout "You're a creep, I hate you!" (b) Say, "I am angry, I don't like what you did." (c) Act hurt about it but not say anything to the person. (d) Say, "I'm mad. I don't like you!" (e) Ignore it and not say anything to the person. Someone has something that you want to use. You would usually: (a) Tell them to give it to you. (b) Not ask to use it. (c) Take it from them. (d) Tell the person you would like to use it, and then ask to use it. . (e) Make a comment about it, but not ask to use it. 120 20. Someone asks if they can borrow something of yours, but it is new and you don't want to let them use it. You would usually: 21. 22. 23. 24. (a) Say. out; (b) Say. (a) Say. (d) Give (9) saY: "No, I just got it and I don't want to lend it maybe some other time." "I really don't want to, but you can use it.” "No, go get your own!" it to them even though you don't want to. "You're crazy!" Some people are talking about a hobby you really like, and you want to join in and say something. You would usually: (a) Not say anything. (b) Interrupt the people and immediately start telling them how good you are at this hobby. (c) Move closer to the people and enter into the conversation when you have a chance. (d) Move closer to the people and wait for them to notice you. (e) Interrupt the people and immediately start talking about how much you like the hobby. You are working on a hobby and someone asks, "What are you doing?" You would usually: (a) Say. (b) Say. (c) Keep (d) Say. (e) Stop "Oh, just something" or "Oh, nothing." - "Don't bother me. Can't you see I'm working?" on working and say nothing. "It's none of your business.” working and explain what you were doing. You see someone trip and fall down. You would usually: (a) Laugh and say, ”Why don't you watch where you're going?" (b) Say, "Are you alright, is there anything I can do?" Ec) Ask, d) Say, "What happened?" "That's the breaks!" (e) Do nothing and ignore it. You bumped your head on a shelf and it hurts. Someone says, "Are you alright?" You would usually: Ea) Say. "I'm fine, leave me alone!" b) Say nothing and ignore them. c Say Ed; Say: e Say, "Why don't you mind your own business!" "No, I hurt my head; thanks for asking." "It 3 nothing, I'm OK." 25. 27. You You 121 made a mistake and someone else is blamed for it. would usually: Say nothing. Say, "It' 8 their mistake!" Say, "I made the mistake." Say, "I don't think that person did it." Say, "That's their tough luck!" feel insulted by something someone said to you. would usually: Walk away from them, but don't tell them you feel upset. Tell them not to do it again. Say nothing to the person, although you feel insulted. Insult them back and call them a name. Tell them you don't like what they said and tell them not to do it again. Someone often interrupts you when you're speaking. You would usually: Say, "Excuse me, I would like to finish what I was say ying." Say, 'This isn't fair; don't I get to talk?" Interrupt the other person by starting to talk again. Say nothing and let the person continue to talk. Say, "Shut up, I was talking!” APPENDIX C EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS SCALE 122 APPENDIX C EFFICACY EXPECTATIONS SCALE The next thing we would like you to do is to pretend that you are going to do some things. We want you to tell us how good you think you will be at these activities compared to kids your age. Let's pretend that one activity is "making a puzzle". If you think you would be poor at making a puzzle, you'd circle the 0. poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 “50 75 100 If you think you would be worse than most kids at making a puzzle, you'd circle the 25. poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 If you think you would be the same as most kids at making a puzzle, you'd circle the 50. poor great +---+---+---+---+ , O 25 50 75 100 If you think you would be better than most kids at making a puzzle, you'd circle the 75. poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 And if you think you would be great at making a puzzle, you'd circle the 100. poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 For these questions, don't think about what you would usually do. Think about how well you could do these activities if you had to do them. For example, if the question says, "HOW—good are you at baking a cake?", don't think about whether or not you would usually bake a cake; just think about how good you would be at baking a cake if you had to do it. 10. ll. 12. 123 HOW GOOD ARE YOU AT: poor great introducing yourself to someone I. +—--+---+---+---+ new 0 25 50 75 100 poor great apologizing if you hurt someone's 2. +---+---+---+---+ feelings O 25 50 75 100 poor great keeping your feelings to yourself 3. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great working together with someone 4. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great telling someone how you feel 5. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great bossing someone around 6. +---+--~+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great threatening someone 7. +~--+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great keeping quiet about what you 8. +---+---+---+---+ think 0 25 50 75 100 poor great sharing 9. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great meeting a new kid at school 10. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great getting along with someone who 11. +---+---+---+---+ doesn't like you O 25 50 75 100 ‘ P00r great saying what you think 12. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 124 not standing up for yourself asking someone for something inviting someone to come over getting into fights with other kids telling someone yourself things about beating someone up making up after an argument standing up for your rights getting back at someone who hurts you pretending you don't care when something bothers you asking someone to be your partner complimenting someone telling someone what they have to do 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O '25 SO 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 poor . great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 poor great +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 125 poor great asking a friend to do something 26. +---+---+---+---+ with you O 25 50 75 100 poor great saying ”no" to something you 27. +---+---+---+---+ don't feel is right 0 25 50 75 100 poor great settling a disagreement without 28. +---+---+---+---+ fighting O 25 50 75 100 poor great doing nothing when someone is 29. +---+---+---+---+ mean to you O 25 50 75 100 poor great getting along with other kids 30. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 APPENDIX H OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS SCALE FOR TYPICAL ACTIONS 126 APPENDIX H OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS SCALE FOR TYPICAL ACTIONS You want someone to come over to your house after school. You would probably: . Tell them they have to come over today. . Tell them you want them to come over. . Not say anything to them. . Ask them if they would like to come over, . Mention that you're not busy after school. (DCLOU‘HD What do you think would happen if you did that? never always a. Would they come over? a.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Would they like you? b,+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What would they think c. mean shy okay terrific of you? ' You want someone to be your partner. You're likely to: a. Do nothing and hope they ask you. b. Say, "If you're my friend, you'll be my partner". c. Stand near them when it's time to choose partners. d. Tell them you won't be friends anymore if they won't be your partner. e. Ask them if they would be your partner. What do you think would happen if you did that? never always a. Would they be your a.+---+---+---+---+ partner? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Would they like you? b.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What would they think c. mean shy okay terrific of you? 127 You know that your friend is feeling sad. You would most likely: a. b. c. d. e. Ask them if they want to talk. Try to convince them to tell you about it. Tell them they have to tell you what's wrong. Leave them alone. Be around in case he/she decides to talk about it. What do you think would happen if you did that? never always a. Would they talk to you? a.+—--+---+---+---+ - O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Would they like you? b.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What would they think c. mean shy okay terrific of you? Your friend asks you what you feel like doing, and you want to go swimming. You: a. b. c. d. e. Say "We've gotta go swimming". Tell them you only want to go swimming. Say "I'd like to go swimming". Say you might like to go swimming. Say 'I don t know. What do you want to do?" What do you think would happen if you did that? never always a. Would you get to go a.+---+---+---+---+ swimming? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Would your friend like b.+---+---+---+---+ you? O 25 50 75 100 c. What would your friend c. mean shy okay terrific think of you? 5. 128 A kid tries to cut into the line in front of you. You would most often: a. Ask if the kid ahead of you said they could cut in. b. Tell them you were in line first. c. Push them back out of line. d. Tell them to get out of here. e. Step back. What do you think would happen if you did that? never always a. Would you get your a.+---+---+---+---+ place back in line? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Would the kid like you? b.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What would the kid c. mean shy okay terrific think of you? You feel bad because a friend teased you and hurt your feelings. You would most likely: a. Tease them back. b. Get into a fight with them. c. Tell them you re feeling bad, and hope they ask why. d. Try to forget it. e. Say "When you teased me, you made me feel bad". What do you think would happen if you did that? . never always a. Would you feel better? a.+---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Would the friend like b.+---+---+---+---+ you? O 25 50 75 100 c. What would the friend c. mean shy okay terrific think of you? APPENDIX I ATTRIBUTIONS RATING SCALE 129 APPENDIX I ATTRIBUTIONS RATING SCALE You meet a new kid at school, and you soon become friends. Why? never always a. My friend introduced us. a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. They were assigned the seat b. +---+---+---+---+ next to me. O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I'm good at making friends. c. +--~+---+---+---+ It comes naturally. O 25 50 75 100 never always d. I showed them around school, d. +---+---+---+---+ and asked them to play with me. O 25 50 75 100 You have an argument with a friend. How do you feel? never always a. I have a bad temper. a. +--~+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 never always b. What can I do to settle b. +---+---+---+---+ this? 0 25 50 75 100 ' never always c. We'll see each other again c. +---+---+---+---+ soon and things will be okay. 0 25 50 75 100 never always d. They'll have to make up d. +---+---+---+---+ with me. O 25 50 75 100 130 You ask someone to come over after school and they say yes. Why? never always a. They didn't have anything a. +---+---+---+---+ else to do. 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Everybody likes me. b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I asked them, and it c. +---+---+---+---+ worked. 0 25 50 75 100 never always d. We have to work together d. +---+---+---+---+ on a school project. 0 25 SO 75 100 Your friend picks someone else to be partners with. What do you think? never always a. I'll have to ask them first a. +--~+---+---+---+ next time. 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. It's just not my day. b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 never always c. What a creep. c. +---+---+--.+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always d. I'm just an unpopular d. +---+---+---+---+ person. 0 25 50 75 100 You have a lot of friends. Why? never always a. My best friend is popular. a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. I work at it. b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I wished really hard for it. c. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always naturally friendly person. 0 25 50 75 100 7. 131 Youqmeet a new person and they don't like you. Why not. never always a. We just didn't hit it off. a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. They're stuck up. b. +--.+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I have a hard time making c. +---+---+---+---+ friends. 0 25 50 75 100 never . always d. I didn't try hard enough d. +---+---+---+---+ to be friendly. 0 25 50 75 100 A friend gives you a compliment. Why? never always a. They're being nice. a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. I worked hard and I deserve b. +---+---+---+---+ it. 0 25 50 75 100 never always c. Today is a good day. c. +---+---+--—+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always d. It just comes easy for me. d. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 You ask if you can join in a game, and the other kids say no. never always a. I'm not good at games. a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 never always b. That's life. b. +---+---+---+--—+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I didn't ask at a good time c. +---+---+---+---+ to join the game. 0 25 50 75 100 never always d. They're mean. d. + ------ +.--+.--+ O 25 50 75 100 132 9. You were chosen to be team captain. How did you get to be picked? never always a. The teacher just decided. a. +---+---+--—+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. I'm good at sports. b. +---+---+--—+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. Just lucky, I guess. c. +--~+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always d. I waved my hand real hard d. +---+---+---+---+ and said 'Pick me!" O 25 50 75 100 10. Other kids ignore you. What do you tell yourself? never always a. There's no good reason at a. +---+--~+---+---+ all for it. 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. I'm a quiet person. b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I act quiet when I'm with c. +---+---+---+---+ them. 0 25 50 75 100 never always d. That's how the other kids d. +---+---+---+---+ are. 0 25 50 75 100 11. You have a great time with a friend. never always a. I thought of lots of fun a. +---+---+---+---+ things to do. 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. They were nice to me. b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. I always have fun. c. +---+--—+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always d. I'm wearing my lucky tennis d. +---+---+---+---+ shoes today. 0 25 50 75 100 133 12. Other kids don't like you. a. It's a bad day. It's how I act. . Someone started a rumor about me. It's just how I am. How come? never always a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always c. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always d. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 APPENDIX J OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS SCALE FOR VARIOUS ACTIONS 134 APPENDIX J OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS SCALE FOR VARIOUS ACTIONS You see a new kid on your block. What will happen if you don't do anything? never always a. Will you meet them? a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. w111 they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ _ o 25 so 75 100 c. Whag will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you. , never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 SO 75 100 do? Someone lies to ou. What will happen if you threaten them if they don t tell you the truth? never always ' a. Will they tell you the a. +---+---+---+---+ truth? 0 25 50 75 100 1 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. Whag will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you. never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do. 135 Your friend has some news they can't wait to tell you. What will happen if you say "Wait! I want to talk first! never always a. Will you get to tell your a. +---+---+---+---+ news? 0 25 SO 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+--—+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? , never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do. Your friend compliments you. What will happen if you say "Oh, it's nothing"? _ never always a. Will they praise you more? a. +---+---+---+---+ . O 25 SO 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you. never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do? A new kid joins your team. What will happen if you tell them you want to play a videogame with them? never always a. Will you play the game a. +---+---+---+---+ together? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 ‘75 100 c. Whas will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you. ‘ never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 o. 136 Someone calls you a name. What will happen if you pretend that you didn't hear anything? never always a. Will they stop calling you a. +---+---+---+---+ names? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do? Someone 8 reads a rumor about you. What will happen if you hit them? - never always a. Will they stop spreading a. +---+---+---+---+ rumors about you. O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+--—+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do. a You need a favor from someone. What will happen if you say "You gotta do this, or else"? never always a. Will they do the favor? a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75_ 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you. never always d. Did this story sound like d. +~--+---+---+---+ Something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 o. 10. 11. 137 You meet a new kid in class. What will happen if you glance over at them and say hi? never always a. Will you get to know them? a. +--~+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do? You get into an argument with someone. What would happen if you said "Let's talk about it”? never always a. Will the argument end? a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. Whag will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you. , never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do? You want to work on a school project with someone. What will happen if you tell them they have to work on a school project with you? never always a. Will you work together? a. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. Whag will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you. never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 o. 12. 13. 14. 138 Your friend wants you to come over, but you're tired. What will happen if you say "I'm tired. Can I come over tomorrow instead?" never always a. Will they invite you over a. +---+---+---+---+ tomorrow? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do? You want to play a game with someone. What will happen if you say "I want you to play a game with me"? never always a. Will you play the game a. +-—-+---+---+---+ together? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? never always d. Did this story sound like d. +--.+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 do. You and your friend are deciding what to do. What will happen if you say "anything you want"? never always a. Will you get to do what a. +---+---+---+---+ you want? 0 25 SO 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 50 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+--.+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 o. 139 15. You get blamed for something another kid did. What will happen if you hint to that kid that you will be punished for something they did? never always a. Will they admit what they a. +---+---+---+-—-+- did? 0 25 50 75 100 never always b. Will they like you? b. +---+---+---+---+ O 25 SO 75 100 c. What will they think of c. mean shy okay terrific you? never always d. Did this story sound like d. +---+---+---+---+ something you would usually 0 25 50 75 100 o. APPENDIX K NOWICKI-STRICKLAND LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE FOR CHILDREN (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 140 APPENDIX K NOWICKI-STRICKLAND LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE FOR CHILDREN no 110 no no no ['10 no no no no no no no no no 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. . Do you believe that most problems will solve themselves if you just don't fool with them? . Do you believe that you can stop yourself from catching a cold? . Are some kids just born lucky? . Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades means a great deal to you? Are you often blamed for things that just aren't your fault? . Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough he or she can pass any subject? Do you feel that most of the time it doesn't pay to try hard because things never turn out right anyway? ‘ \ . Do you feel that if things start out well in the morning that it's going to be a good day no matter what you do? ' . Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children have to say? Do you believe that wishing can make good things happen? When you get punished does it usually seem it's for no good reason at all? Most of the time do you find it hard to change a friend's opinion? Do you think that cheering more than luck helps a team to win? Do you feel that it is nearly impossible to change your parent's mind about anything? Do you believe that your parents should allow you to make most of your own decisions? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no I10 no no no 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 141 Do you feel that when you do something wrong there's very little you can do to make it right? Do you believe that most kids are just born good at sports? Are most of the other kids your age stronger than you? Do you feel that one of the best ways to handle most problems is just not to think about them? Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in . deciding who your friends are? - If you find a four leaf clover do you believe that it might bring you good luck? Do you often feel that whether you do your homework has much to do with what kind of grades you get? weer-L .2 t ' Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, there's little you can do to stop him or her? Have you ever had a good luck charm? Do you believe that whether or not people like' you depends on how you act? Will your parents usually help you if you ask them to? Have you felt that when people were mean to you it was usually for no reason at all? Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today? Do you believe that when bad things are going to happen they are just going to happen no matter what you try to do to stop them? Do you think that kids can get their own way if they just keep trying? Most of the time do you find it useless to try to get your own way at home? ‘ Do you feel that when good things happen they happen because of hard work? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no [10 no no no no no 1'10 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 142 Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be your enemy there's little you can do to change matters? ’ Do you feel that it's easy to get friends to do what you want them to? Do you usually feel that you have little to say about what you get to eat at home? Do you feel that when someone doesn't like you there's little you can do about it? Do you usually feel that it's almost useless to try in school because most other children are just plain smarter than you are? Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes things turn out better? Most of the time, do you feel that you have little to say about what your family decides to do? Do you think it's better to be smart than to be lucky? APPENDIX L YOUNG CHILDREN'S SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE (Ford & Rubin, 1970) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH O I NHNH o o no co co on 00 NH 00 o HNHNH 0 Do Do Do Do Do- Do you you you you you you 143 APPENDIX L YOUNG CHILDREN'S SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE sometimes play with toys? or never play with toys? always play all by yourself? or sometimes play with other children? sometimes argue with your mother? or never argue with your mother? Are you always polite to older people? or Are you sometimes not polite to older people? Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do you you you you you you you you you you you you you never shout when you feel angry? or sometimes shout when you feel angry? sometimes tell a little lie? or never tell a little lie? sometimes hit another boy or girl? or never hit another boy or girl. always help people? or sometimes not help people? never show off to your friends? or sometimes show off to your friends? sometimes say mean things to people? or never say mean things to people? sometimes feel like throwing or breaking things? or Do you never feel like throwing or breaking things? Do Do you you always Do Do Do you you you feel that sometimes right? your parents are always right? or feel that your parents are not naughty? or act naughty? never act sometimes sometimes do other things instead of what your teacher tells you? or Do you always do what your teacher tells you to do? Do you sometimes do things you're not supposed to 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. NH NH NH NH NH NH 144 do? or Do you never do things you're not supposed to do? Do you think your teacher knows more than you do? or Do you think ou know more than your teacher does? (I know more.) Do you sometimes want things your parents don't want you to have? or Do you never want things your parents don't want you to have? Does it sometimes bother you when you don't get your way? or Does it never bother you when you don't get your way? Do you always listen to your parents? or Do you sometimes not listen to your parents? Do you always wash your hands before every meal? or Do you sometimes not wash your hands before every meal? Do you never feel like making fun of other people? or Do you sometimes feel like making fun of other people? Do you sometimes forget to say "please" and "thank you'? or Do you never forget to say "please" and "thank you"? Does it sometimes bother ou to share things with your friends? (bothers me) or Does it never bother you to share things with your friends? (doesn't bother me) Do you sometimes want to do things your parents tell you not to do? or Do you never want to do things your parents tell you not to do? Do you never get angry? or Do you sometimes get angry? Are you always nice to peOple? or Are you sometimes not nice to peOple? Do you sometimes not do the right things? or Do you always do the right things? Do you always tell the truth? or Do you sometimes not tell the truth? APPENDIX M SELF-STATEMENT INSTRUMENT 145 APPENDIX M SELF-STATEMENT INSTRUMENT You and your friend play a game together, and you have a great time. a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? ' F c. What do you think will happen next? A new kid joins the team, and you like each other. . H.530 - a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? a You and your friend get into a big argument, and you stop speaking to each other. - a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? A new kid your a e moves to your street, and you see ' each other outsi e. . a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? You try to say something nice to your friend, but you make a mistake and end up hurting their feelings instead. a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? You and your friend can't decide which game to play, so you each choose one and play two games instead of one. a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? 146 You and your friend feel like doing different things. a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? A new kid comes to class, and you don't get along. a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? A kid in your class is assigned to work with you. a. How do you feel about yourself? b. Why do you think this happened? c. What do you think will happen next? APPENDIX N CODING SCHEME AND CODING SCHEME SUMMARY SHEET FOR SELF-STATEMENT INSTRUMENT 147 APPENDIX N CODING SCHEME AND CODING SCHEME SUMMARY SHEET FOR SELF-STATEMENT INSTRUMENT I. Locus of Control Codes Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 1 internal (a) child themself is I would ask him locus of grammatical subject to play. control of informational - unit (b) no grammatical Happy. subject is provided in self-perception questions 2 external another person is She would ask me locus of grammatical subject to play. control of informational The teacher unit told us to work together. 3 dual both child themself We would ask locus of and another person each other to control are grammatical play. subjects of I would ask him informational unit, to play, or he or subsequent would ask me to informational units play. of identical response type 4 misc. above categories of I don't know. locus of locus of control control are not applicable 148 II. Response Type Codes A. Miscellaneous codes Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code OO unintelli- response has been I would feel gible/ recorded as (unintelli- omitted unintelligible, or gible). question has been omitted 01 don't lack of production I don't know. know of any codable I can't think of information in anything... response to (silence) uestion Do not code child's reply that he/she does not know the answer if followed by a codable response, e.g. "I don't know... happy"- 02 ambiva- inability to clearly Confused. lence identify own Mixed up. feelings Both good and bad. I wouldn't really feel one way or the other. 99 miscella- categories 00 to I would want to neous 87 are not be the person applicable to who never moves. child's response 149 B. Positive self-perception codes Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 03 general expression of Good. Happy. positive positive self- Glad. Nice. self- perception not Okay. Fine. perception ncluded in Alright. categories 04 and Not bad. Fun. 05 O4 extremely outstandingly Terrific. Great. positive positive indication Excellent. self- of self-perception perception 05 extro- reference to self— Friendly. version perception as outgoing or popular 88 popularity reference to I have a lot of popularity friends. I make friends easily. People like me. 150 C. Negative self-perception codes Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 06 general expression of Bad. Unhappy. negative negative self— Not happy. self— perception not Not good. Upset. perception included in Not nice. categories 07 to 14 O7 extremely indication of Horrible. negative outstandingly Terrible. self- negative self— Miserable. perception perception Rotten. I would hate myself. I would kill myself. 08 introver- reference to self— Shy. Nervous. sion perception as Scared. Lonely. introverted or Uncomfortable. unpopular Embarrassed. 89 unpopular- reference to I don't have a ity unpopularity lot of friends. 09 depressed expression of Discouraged. depressed mood Disappointed. state Hurt. Depressed. Sad. Pretty low. Gloomy. 10 strange perception of self Weird. Strange. as different from Different. peers in a negative sense 11 stupid reference to feeling Stupid. Dumb. of intellectual Dummy. Jerk. inferiority in comparison to peers 12 mean reflection on self— Mean. Selfish. possession of anti- social characteristics 13 sorry/ expression of self- Sorry. Guilty. guilty perception disclosing Ashamed. regret 151 C. Negative self-perception codes (continued) Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 14 mad/ indication of anger Mad. Angry. angry at self, using the words "mad" or "angry" 152 D. Positive affect for other Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 15 likes expression of I like her. other positive affect for He likes me. 'other, employing the We like each word 'like" other. 16 positive description of other She's friendly. person- as possessing a He's nice. ality positive character She's fun. He's cool. 17 similar description of other We're alike. person- as possessing a ality similar character to oneself 18 similar mention of similar- We both like the likes/ ity between self and same things. dislikes other in feelings, We have alot in unrelated to common. specific choice of We feel the same games way. 19 gets along indication of We get along. with'other compatibility with other, employing the words "get along" 20 friend- reference to We're friends. ship friendship, or We'll be certainty regarding friends. state of future She's a new friendship, with friend. other I'd make 'friends. 153 E. Negative affect for other Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 21 dislikes expression of I don't like other negative affect for him. other, employing She doesn't like the word '1ike" me. We don't like each other. 22 negative description of other He's stuck-up. person- as possessing a She's a trouble- ality negative character maker. He doesn't like anyone. 23 different description of other They're a person- as possessing a different type ality different character of person. from oneself We were born different. We're not the type of person that get along. 24 dissimilar mention of dis- We like likes/ similarity in different dislikes feelings between things. self and other, We have unrelated to different specific choice of opinions. games 25 don't get indication of We don't get along with incompatibility with along. other other, employing the words "get along" 26 non- reference to lack of We're not friendship friendship or friends. certainty regarding We won't be lack of future friends. friendship with We have to other break up. I lost a friend. 154 F. Prosocial activities Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 27 agree indication of We agreed. agreement with other, using the word "agree" 28 decide on reference to arrival We decided activity at mutual decision together. We did the best thing. 29 compromise implication that We played both decision arrived at games. was mutually We both got what beneficial/ we wanted. satisfactory We took turns. 30 do what disclosure of I want what she other willingness to wants. wants accommodate to I like giving wishes of other him first choice. 31 prosocial description of I like being action behavior which would nice. facilitate further I was being development of nice. relationship, and/or It's a nice conform to social thing to do. norms I'd help her. 32 empathy empathic response We understand to other each other. I know how it feels. 155 G. Antisocial activities Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 33 disagree indication of We disagreed. difference in opinion from other, using the word "disagree" (Exception: Include 'a disagreement” under the category fight/ argue.) 34 indecision reference to the We couldn't about inability to arrive decide. activity at mutual decision We had a hard time choosing. 35 do decision to I want to do one different participate in thing, and he things separate activities wants to do another. 36 do what decision that own I'd feel like one person wishes will receive doing whatever I wants priority over want to. other's I'd want to convince her. 37 do/say perception that one I said/did the something has behaved in a wrong thing. wron / manner described as I said/did disl ked "wrong" or disliked something he by other by other didn't like. 38 hurt mention that one I hurt her other's child has behaved in feelings. feelings a manner which ”hurt" the other 39 anti- description of I called him a social behavior which would name. action be non-facilitative She hit me. of develOpment of relationship, and/or violate social norms 156 G. Antisocial activities (continued) Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 4O inappro- priate inappropriate response to other and/or situation Ask him for a cookie. Give her a prize. H. Relationship 157 formation/maintenance Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 41 desire to indication that one He wanted to initiate child wishes to begin meet. acquain- an acquaintanceship tanceship with another child, with spe- without reference to k cific other friendship * 42 desire to indication that one I like meeting initiate child wishes to begin new kids. acquain- an acquaintanceship , tanceship with other children in L with gener- general, without re- a a1 others ference to friendship g 43 initiation assertion that We met. of - acquaintanceship I met someone acquain- will be or has been new. tanceship initiated, usually using the word "meet", without reference to friendship 44 acquain- mention of ongoing I know her. tanceship acquaintanceship, I knew him well. typically employing the word "know" 45 initiation assertion that one I'd go over to of child will initiate, her. inter- an interaction with action the other 46 desire to indication that one I wish we could parti- child wishes to play together. cipate engage in activity We wanted to with with another child play the game. specific ' other 47 desire to indication that one I like to play parti- cipate with general others child wishes to engage in activity with children in general, or group of children with people. He wanted to join the team. 158 H. Relationship formation/maintenance (continued) Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 48 invitation expression that one I'd ask her to to child will invite play. participate another child to engage in activity 49 pleasure- statement that one I'd play with ER oriented child would engage him. , partici- in a pleasurable 3 pation activity with another, , often employing the g word "play" i 50 task- statement that one We'd work E oriented child would engage together. partici— in a task with another, pation often employing the word "work" 51 accompani- mention that child Because I'm with ment of is in company of.a my friend. friend friend 52 desire to expression that one I'd want to be initiate child wishes to be friends with friendship friends with another her. with spe- ‘ cific other 53 desire to expression that one I want to make initiate child wishes to be as many friends friendship friends with other as I can. with gener- children in general I like meeting a1 others new friends. 54 ask to be request by one child I asked him to friends to become or remain be my friend. friends with another I'd ask her to be friends ' forever. 55 desire to indication that one We wanted to maintain friendship with spe- cific other child wishes to re- main friends with another child (In- clude desire to per- form friendship main- taining activities.) stay friends. We didn't want to fight. I'd wish we could be friends again. 159 H. Relationship formation/maintenance (continued) Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 56 desire to indication that one I don't like to maintain child wishes to re-' have enemies. friendship main friends with with gener- other children in a1 others general (Include de- ' q sire to perform friend- F? ship maintaining ,activities.) 57 desire to expression that child I'd want to get increase hopes to attain a to know him “~ level of greater relationship better. . relation- with other g ship ” 58. increase assertion that child We'd get to know in level of will attain or has each other relation- attained a greater better. ship relationship with We'd get closer. other 59 not argue/ denial that one would I wouldn't argue not fight engage in altercation with her. with other We wouldn't fight. 60 apologize/ discussion of apology I should say make up or truce, usually sorry. employing the words I want to make "apologize” or "make up. up' (Code "make up friends" under both categories 20 and 60.) 61 explain/ statement indicating Tell him why it repeat that child would happened. provide an explana- Say it again. tion for his words/ actions or repeat his intended statement correctly 160 H. Relationship formation/maintenance (continued) Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 62 talk statement indicating We'd talk. that child would engage in verbal exchange other than specific explanation or repetition, usually employing the word "talk" 161 I. Relationship termination Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 63 non- statement indicating We don't know acquain- lack of any relation- each other. tanceship ship between children I've never seen her before. 64 initial expression that child I didn't like negative initially perceived the look of him. impression other in a negative We got off to a light bad start. 65 mad/angry indication of anger We got mad at at other directed at other each other. 66 fight/ assertion that We fight. argue/ differences between We'd have a disagree- children would be disagreement. ment resolved by fighting/ arguing (Include reference to "a disagreement" here.) 67 desire not expression of wish She didn't want to parti- not to engage in to talk to me. cipate with activity with I should stay specific another away from him. other 68 desire not expression of wish I don't like to to parti- not to engage in play with girls. cipate with activity with others general in general others 69 non- assertion that child I'll ignore him. participa- would not engage in tion activity with another 70 termination statement that I'd go home. of children's mutual I'd go on a interaction participation in different team. activity would end 72 lack of statement reflecting We wouldn't communica- a lack of verbal talk. tion exchange between children Ea. 162 J. Task-related codes Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 74 proficiency discussion of ability She's good at in to perform well in basketball. activity activity ' 75 deficiency discussion of He's not a good in inability to perform student. activity well in activity 76 task indication that task The project demand requirements play a takes two major role in people. determining course It's easier/ of action faster to work together. 77 need for disclosure of need She needed help. assistance for help in activity 78 enjoy mention of enjoyment I liked the activity of activity game. ’ I had a good time. It was fun. 79 dislike mention of non- I was tired of activity enjoyment of the game. activity We like a change. 80 positive expectation that We're gonna win. outcome situation will result We might have a in positive ending good team. for activity 81 negative expectation that Get sent in the outcome situation will result hall. in negative ending for activity Get kicked off the team. 163 K. Other-related codes Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 82 misc. statement in which His mom wanted statement person other than him to join. related to speaker or other The teacher other child is main assigned us to determinant of work together. action, not addressed by other categories 83 new description of She's new. person other as being "new" He doesn't know or unacquainted with anyone. other children She didn't have any friends yet. 84 other's statement reflecting They think I'm feelings speaker's perception mean. about of other's feelings They don't think speaker regarding himself I like them anymore. L. Accident/fate/luck codes Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 85 accident mention of non- It was a mis- purposeful nature understanding. of incident I got mixed up. I didn't mean to. It was a mistake. 86 fate/ fate or luck as I was outside. luck major determinant There was no one of action else to play with. He just moved in. She joined the team. "m' V M. Effort codes 164 Code # Code Name Description of Code Examples of Code 87 effort effort as major determinant of action. (Include all references to "try” both here and under any other appropriate categories.) Because I made an honest effort. I tried. 165 Coding Scheme Summary Sheet 1. Locus of Control (LOC) I intEFnaI LOC 2 external LOC 3 dual LOC 4 misc. LOC II. Response Type A. 00 Ol 02 99 B. 03 04 Miscellaneous unintelligible/omitted don't know ambivalence miscellaneous Positive self-perception general positive self-perception extremely positive self-perception extroversion popularity OS 88 C. 6 Negative self-perception O generaI*negative self-perception extremely negative self-perception introversion unpopularity depressed self-perception strange self-perception stupid self-perception mean self-perception sorry/guilty self-perception mad/angry self-perception O7 O8 89 O9 10 11 12 13 14 Positive affect for other '___ IIEes other positive personality similar personality similar likes/dislikes gets along with other friendship E. 21 22 23 24 25 26 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 Negative affect for other diinkes other negative personality different personality dissimilar likes/dislikes don't get along with other non-friendship Prosocial activities agree decide on activity compromise do what other wants prosocial action empathy Antisocial activities diSagree indecision about activity do different things do what one person wants do/say something wrong/ disliked by other hurt other's feelings antisocial action inappropriate Im'..q._ . .. l I . Relationship formation/ maintenance desire to Initiate acquaintanceship with specific other desire to initiate acquaintanceship with general others initiation of acquaintanceship acquaintanceship initiation of interaction desire to participate with specific other desire to participate with general others invitation to participate pleasure-oriented participation task-oriented participation 51 52 53. 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 166 accompaniment of friend L. desire to initiate friend- ship with specific other desire to initiate friend- ship with general-others ask to be friends desire to maintain friend- ship with specific other desire to maintain friend- ship with general others desire to increase level of relationship increase in level of relationship not argue/ not fight apologize/make up explain/repeat talk I. Relationship termination J. 73‘. 53 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 72 non-acquaintance initial negative impression mad/angry at other fight/argue/disagreement desire not to participate with specific other desire not to participate with general others non-participation termination of interaction lack of communication Task-related codes 75 proficiency in activity deficiency in activity task demand need for assistance enjoy activity dislike activity positive outcome negative outcome . Other-related codes 82 83 84 misc. statement related to other new person other's feelings about speaker Accident/fate/luck/effort 85 accident 86 fate/luck 87 effort APPENDIX 0 GENERALIZABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE SELF-STATEMENT LOCUS OF CONTROL AND RESPONSE TYPE CODES 167 APPENDIX 0 GENERALIZABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE SELF-STATEMENT LOCUS OF CONTROL AND RESPONSE TYPE CODES I. Generalizability Coefficients for the Self-Statement Locus of Control Codes 5 Code No. Code Type Self-Perception Attribution Outcome Expectation 1‘_Jfi I 1 .91 .73 .91 2 .98 .99 .76 3 .93 .93 .96 4 097 . “024 1000 II. Generalizability Coefficients for the Self-Statement Response Type Codes Code No. Code Type Self-Perception Attribution Outcome Expectation 03 .98 1.00 0.00 04 .96 N/A N/A 05 -.35 0.00 N/A 06 .97 0.00 N/A 07 1.00 N/A N/A 08 .72 .66 N/A 09 .67 N/A N/A 10 .81 N/A N/A 11 .99 N/A N/A 12 .92 0.00 N/A 13 .95 .66 N/A 14 .98 1.00 N/A 15 .96 1.00 .79 Note. Generalizability coefficients were not calculated for gge mizcgélaneous response type coding categories 00, 01, , an . 168 II. Generalizability Coefficients for the Self-Statement Response Type Codes (continued) Code No. Code Type Self-Perception Attribution Outcome Expectation 16 0.00 .91 N/A 17 N/A N/A N/A 18 N/A .83 1.00 19 .79 1.00 1.00 20 .88 .77 .99 21 .66 1.00 -.17 22 N/A .92 N/A 23 N/A .40 N/A 24 1.00 -.43 N/A 25 1.00 .93 1.00 26 .66 1.00 1.00 27 N/A N/A 1.00 28 .40 .86 .71 29 .95 1.00 .97 30 .74 .42 .85 31 .64 .90 .94 32 .66 .96 N/A 33 N/A .63 N/A 34 1.00 1.00 N/A 35 1.00 -.49 .88 36 .18 0.00 0.00 37 .57 .38 .39 38 1.00 1.00 N/A 39 1.00 .28 N/A 40 N/A N/A N/A 41 1.00 .57 N/A 42 1.00 1.00 N/A. 43 .03 .52 1.00 44 N/A 1.00 1.00 45 .60 1.00 .96 46 -.12 -.64 1.00 47 .66 .66 N/A 48 1.00 1.00 .85 49 .70 .73 .93 50 .88 .52 .77 51 1.00 .28 .00 52 1.00 .93 1.00 53 .00 1.00 N/A 54 N/A 1.00 1.00 55 .61 .66 .74 56 .17 .00 N/A 57 N/A .48 N/A 58 N/A .00 .91 169 II. Generalizability Coefficients for the Self-Statement Response Type Codes (continued) Code No. Code Type Self-Perception Attribution Outcome Expectation 59 .79 .40 .66 60 1.00 N/A .93 61 1.00 N/A -.70 62 .42 .03 .83 63 1.00 .94 N/A 64 1.00 -.35 N/A 65 .66 1.00 1.00 66 .93 .94 .70 67 .00 1.00 N/A 68 .00 N/A .00 69 1.00 .32 .93 -70 N/A N/A .96 72 N/A. .88 1.00 74 .66 1.00 .79 75 1.00 .66 N/A 76 .66 .66, N/A 77 1.00 .88 .79 78 .89 .95 .85 79 .00 .92 .66 80 .66 1.00 .77 81 N/A .00 .88 82 -.35 -.14 -.05 83 .66 .93 N/A 84 N/A .82 -.30 85 054 A 096 ‘038 86 .65 .53 .40 87 1.00 .90 .95 88 1.00 N/A .00 89 N/A .66 N/A APPENDIX P CATEGORICAL CODING SCHEMES 170 APPENDIX P CATEGORICAL CODING SCHEMES A. Categorical coding schemes for open-ended self-perception questions and response type codes from which they were composed Categorical Coding Scheme Response Type Codes 01 Good 03 general positive ‘ self-perception O4 extremely positive self-perception 02 Bad 06 general negative self-perception O7 extremely negative self-perception 03 Positive Affect 15 likes other 16 positive personality 20 friendship 51 accompaniment of friend 04 Agreement 19 gets along with other 27 agree 28 decide on activity 29 compromise 30 do what other wants 05 Desire to Initiate 41 desire to initiate acquaintanceship with specific other 42 desire to initiate acquaintanceship with . general others 46 desire to participate with specific other 47 desire to participate with general others 52 desire to initiate friendship with specific other 53 desire to initiate friendship with general others 171 A. Categorical coding schemes for open-ended self-perception questions and response type codes from which they were composed (continued) Categorical Coding Scheme Response Type Codes O6 Initiation 43 initiation of acquaintanceship 45 initiation of interaction 48 invitation to participate F3 54 ask to be friends i 07 Interaction 49 pleasure-oriented participation 50 task-oriented participation 08 Desire to Maintain 55 desire to maintain Friendship friendship with specific other 56 desire to maintain friendship with general others 09 Positive Outcome 74 proficiency in activity 78 enjoy activity ' 80 positive outcome 10 Try 87 effort 11 Shy 08 introversion 12 Sad 09 depressed self-perception 13 Sorry 13 sorry/guilty self-perception 14 Mad l4 mad/angry self-perception 15 Negative Affect 21 dislikes other 22 negative personality 26 non-friendship 16 Disagreement 25 don't get along with other 33 disagree 34 indecision about activity 35 do different things 36 do what one person wants 172 B. Categorical coding schemes for open-ended attribution questions and response type codes from which they were composed Categorical Coding Scheme Response Type Codes 01 Accidentally Do/Say Wrong 37 do/say something wrong/ disliked by other 85 accident 02 Positive Affect 15 likes other 16 positive personality 20 friendship 51 accompaniment of friend 03 Agreement 19 gets along with other 27 agree 28 decide on activity 29 compromise 30 do what other wants O4 Desire to Initiate 41 desire to initiate acquaintanceship with specific other 42 desire to initiate acquaintanceship with general others 46 desire to participate with specific other 47 desire to participate with general others 52 desire to initiate friendship with specific other 53 desire to initiate friendship with general others 05 Positive Outcome 74 proficiency in activity 78 enjoy activity 80 positive outcome 06 Termination Prevention 59 not argue/not fight 60 apolog ze /make up 61 explain/repeat O7 Interaction 49 pleasure-oriented participation 50 task-oriented participation 173 B. Categorical coding schemes for Open-ended attribution questions and response type codes from which they were composed (continued) ' Categorical Coding Scheme Response Type Codes 08 Try 87 effort 09 Similar 18 similar likes/dislikes 10 New 83 new person 11 Prosocial Action 31 prosocial action 12 Negative Affect 21 dislikes other 22 negative personality 26 non-friendship 13 Disagreement 25 don't get along with other 33 disagree 34 indecision about activity 35 do different things 36 do what one person wants 14 Negative Outcome 75 deficiency in activity 79 dislike activity ' 81 negative outcome 15 Relationship Termination 65 mad/angry at other f 06 fight/argue disagreement 7O termination of interaction 16 Fate 86 fate/luck 17 Dissimilar 24 dissimilar likes/dislikes 18 Do/Say Wrong 37 do/say something wrong/ disliked by other 19 Accident 85 accident 20 Antisocial Action 39 antisocial action 174 C. Categorical coding schemes for open-ended outcome expectation questions and response type codes from which they were composed Categorical Coding Scheme Response Type Codes 01 Negative Outcome 69 non-participation 75 deficiency in activity 79 dislike activity 81 negative outcome 02 Positive Affect 15 likes other 16 positive personality 20 friendship 51 accompaniment of friend 03 Agreement 19 gets along with other 27 agree 28 decide on activity 29 compromise 30 do what other wants 04 Initiation 43 initiation of ' acquaintanceship 45 initiation of interaction 48 invitation to participate 54 ask to be friends 05 Interaction ' 49 pleasure-oriented participation 50 task-oriented participation 06 Positive Outcome 74 proficiency in activity 78 enjoy activity 80 positive outcome 07 Try ' 87 effort 08 Talk 62 talk 09 Relationship Increase 58 increase in level of relationship 10 Termination Prevention 59 not argue/not fight 60 apologize/make up 61 expla n/repeat 11 Negative Affect 21 dislikes other 22 negative personality 26 non-friendship 175 C. Categorical coding schemes for Open-ended outcome expectation questions and response type codes from which they were composed (continued) Categorical Coding Scheme Response Type Codes 12 Disagreement 13 Non-Participation 14 Negative Outcome 15 Fate 16 Noncommunicative 17 Relationship Termination 25 33 34 35 36 69 75 79 81 86 72 65 66 70 don't get along with other disagree indecision about activity do different things do what one person wants non-participation deficiency in activity dislike activity negative outcome fate/luck lack of communication mad/angry at other fight/argue/disagreement termination of interaction APPENDIX Q VP .1 (twat-{rum may. GENERALIZABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE CATEGORICAL CODING SCHEMES 176 APPENDIX Q GENERALIZABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE CATEGORICAL CODING SCHEMES Categorical Categorical Coding Scheme Type Coding Scheme Number Self-Perception Attribution Outcome Expectation Ol .95 .97 .96 02 .97 .99 .99 03 1.00 .61 .71 O4 .98 -.11 .92 05 .81 .96 1.00 06 1.00 .40 .84 O7 .96 .30 .95 O8 .17 .90 .83 O9 .92 .83 .91 10 1.00 .93 .86 11 1.00 .90 .64 12 1.00 1.00 .73 13 .95 .47 .93 14 .98 .93 1.00 15 1.00 .86 .40 16 .86 .53 1.00 17 N/A -.43 .98 18 N/A .38 .96 19 N/A .96 N/A 20 N/A .27 N/A BIBLIOGRAPHY :17 . lit" BIBLIOGRAPHY Alden, L., & Cappe, R. (1981). Nonassertiveness: Skill deficit or selective self-evaluation? Behavior Therapy, 12, 107-114. Allen, V. L. (1981). Self, social group, and social structure: Surmises about the study of children's friendships. In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds.), Th3 development of children's fpiendships. Cambridge, EngIand: CamEFidge UniversityflPress. American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles of psychologists (revised). American Psychologist, 34, 633-638. Ames, R., Ames, C., & Garrison, W. (1977). Children's causal ascriptions for positive and negative interpersonal outcomes. Psychological Reports, 41, 595-602. Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence. New York: Guilford. Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456-1464. Asher, S. R., Markell, R. A., & Hymel, S. (1981). Identifying children at risk in peer relations: A critique of the rate-of-interaction approach to assessment. Child Development, 52, 1239-1245. Asher, S. R., Oden, S. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1977). Children's friendships in school settings. In L. G. KaEz Ed. Current topics in early childhood education Vo . I. Norwood, N3: ABIex._— ’ Asher, S. R., & Renshaw, P. D. (1981). Children without friends: Social knowledge and social skill training. In S. R. Asher and J. M. Gottman (Eds.), The deve10pment pf children's friendships. NY: Cambridge Ufiiversity Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children's friendship expectations: gagogngtive-developmental study. Child Development, 48, - 5 . ‘————— . 177 178 Booth, C. L., Mitchell, S. K., & Solin, F. K. (1979). The generalizability study as a method of assessing intra- and interobserver reliability in observational research. Behavior Research Methods 4 Instrumentation, ll, 491-494. Bower, E. M. (1960). Earl identification of emotionally handicapped children £3 school. SpringfiEId, IL: CharIes C. Thomas . Bruch, M. A. (1981). A task analysis of assertive behavior revisited: Replication and extension. Behavior Therapy, 1.2.» 217-230. Bukowski, W. M., & Newcomb, A. F. (1983). The association between peer experiences and identity formation in early adolescence. Journal pf Early Adolescence, 3, 265-274. Butler, L., & Meichenbaum, D. (1981). The assessment of interpersonal problem-solving skills. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions. New York: Academic Pfess. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal gpaigs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and chan es in children's sociometric status: A five-year long tudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-2810 _ Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. Coie, J. D., & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the social status of low-achieving, socially rejected children. Child Development, 55, 1465-1478. Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416. Connell, J. P. (1980). 4_multidimensional measure pf children's perceptions pfcontroi. UnpuBIished master's thesis, University of*Denver. Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, M., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 438-446. ‘— 179 Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965) Children's beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual- academic situations. Child Development, 39, 91-109. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theo of'generalizabiIity‘for scores and profiles.INew Y rE: WIIey. Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy_ and achievement conditions following failure. Journa of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386- 1399 Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 389- 409 Dunnington, M. J. (1957). Investigation of areas of disagreement in sociometric measurement of preschool. children. Child Development, 28, 93-102. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned hel lessness. Journal pf Personality and Social Psychology, _1, Dweck, C. S. & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109- 116. Eisler, R. M., Frederiksen, L. W., & Peterson, G. L. (1978). The relationship of cognitive variables to the expression of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 9, 419- 427. ‘ Elig, T. W., & Frieze, I. H. (1979). Measuring causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621- 634. Ellis A. & Harper, R. A. (1961). A e to rational livin ng. .’Eng1ewood Cliffs, NJ: PrentIce-HaII. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crises. New York: Norton. 180 Fiedler, D., & Beach, L. R. (1978). On the decision to be zgsertive;6Journa1 of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 537 5 Fine, G. A. (1981). Friends, impression management, and preadolescent behavior. In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds. ), The development of children' s friendships. New York: CambridgeUniversity Pfess. Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975L Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-wesley. Flavell, J. H. (1981a). Cognitive monitorin . In W. P. Dickson (Ed. ), Children' s oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press. Flavell, J. H. (1981b). Monitoring social cognitive enterprises: Something else that may develop in the area of social cognition. In L H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds. ), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures. New Yofk: Cambridge University P_§ss. 'Ford, L. H. ,Jr., & Rubin, B. M. (1970L A social desirability questionnaire for young children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 195- 204. Glass, C. R., Gottman, L M., & Schmurak, S. H. (1976). Response acquisition and cognitive self-statement modification to dating skills training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 520-526. Click, 0. (1972). Some social-emotional consequences of early inadequate acquisition of reading skills. Journal ‘22 Educational Psychology, 62, 253-257. Glogower, F. D., Fremouw, W. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1978). A component analysis of cognitive restructuring. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 209-223. Goetz, T. E. & Dweck, C. S. (1980L Learned helplessness in social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 246- 255. Gottman, J. M. (1977). Toward a definition of social isolation in children. Child Development, 48, 513-517. Gottman, J. M. Gonso, J., & Schuler, P. (1976). Teaching social skills to isolated children. 2225252_ of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 179- 197. Green, K. D., & Forehand, R. (1980). Assessment of children's social skills: A review of methods. 2225332 22 Behavioral Assessment, ‘2, 143-159. 181 Green, K. D., Forehand, R., Beck, S. J., & Vosk, B. (1980). An assessment of the relationship among measures of children's social competence and children's academic achievement. Child Development, El, 1149-1156. Gronlund, N. E., & Anderson, L. (1957). Personality characteristics of socially accepted, socially neglected, and socially rejected junior high school pupils. Educational Administration and Supervision, 3;, 329-338. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, El, 34-64. Harter, S. (1979). Perceived competence scale for children. Denver: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. In A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, 15: 215-255. Hillsdale,NJ:'Lawrence_ErI5au . Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 5;, 87-97. Harter, S. (1983). The development of the self-system. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), Carmichael's manual 2: child s cholo : Social and personality development. New York: Eiley. - Hartup, W. W., Glazer, J. A., & Charlesworth, R. (1967). Peer reinforcement and sociometric status. Child Development, fig, 1017-1024. Hollon, S. D., & Kendall, P. C. (1981). In vivo assessment techniques for cognitive-behavioral processes. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cpgnitive-behavioral interventions. New’Yofk: Academic—— Press. Hops, H., & Greenwood, C. R. (1981). Social skills deficits. In E. J. Mash & L. G. Terdal (Eds.), Behavioral assessment pg childhood disorders. New York: GuilfOrdi Hunter, J. E., Cohen, S. H., & Nicol, T. S. (1982). Packa e:‘é s stem 3: routines to $2 correlational analysis, inc u ng path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, 22d egploratory factor analysis. Computer program. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 182 Hymel, S., & Asher, S. R. (1977, March). Assessment 23d training of isolated children s social skills. Paper presented‘Et the Biennial meeting oE_Ehe Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 136 930). Ka an, J., Hans, S., Markowitz, A., Lopez, D., & Sigal, H. %1982). Validity of children s self-reports of psychological qualities. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research, Vol. 11. ew or : Academic. Kurdek, L. A., & Krile, D. (1982). A developmental analysis of the relation between peer acceptance and both interpersonal understanding and perceived social self-competence. Child Development, 22, 1485-1491. Ladd, G. W. (1981). Effectiveness of a social learning method for enhancing children's social interaction and peer acceptance. Child Development, 52, 171-178. Lemann, T. B., & Solomon, R. L. (1952). Group characteristics as revealed in sociometric patterns and personality ratings. Sociometry,‘l§, 7-90. Lesser, G. S. (1959). The relationship between various forms of aggression and popularity among lower-class children. Journal pf Educational Psychology, 50, 20-25. Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1974). The s cholo pf sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mahoney M. J. (1974). Co nition and behavior modification. Cambridge, MA: Baiiinger. Meichenbaum, D. H. (1972). Cognitive modification of test anxious college students. Journal pf Consulting and Clinical Psychology, g2, 375-336. Meichenbaum, D., & Butler, L. (1980). Toward a conceptual model for the treatment of test anxiety: Implications for research and treatment. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiet : Theor , research and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meichenbaum, D., Butler, L., & Gruson, L. (1981). Toward a conceptual model of social competence. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence. New York: Guilford. Meijers, J. Personal communication. Cited in Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavioral modification. New York: Plenum Press. 183 Michael, C. M., Morris, D. P., & Soroker, E. (1957). Follow-up studies of shy, withdrawn children, II: Relative incidence of schizophrenia. American Journal of OrthOpsychiatry, 21, 331-337. _— Michelson, L., Vucelic, I., Andrasik, F., & Coleman, D. (1979). External validity and psychometric proPerties of the children‘s assertiveness behavior §EEIe. UnpublisEEd manuscript,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Michelson, L., & Wood, R. (1980). A group assertive training program for elementary school children. Child Behavior Therapy, 2, 1-9. Michelson, L., & Wood, R. (1982). Development and Psychometric PrOperties of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale. Journal pf Behavioral Assessment, 4, 3-13. Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. M. (1976). Determinants of selective memory about the self. Journal pf Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 92-103. Mitchell, 8. K. (1979). Interobserver agreement, reliability, and generalizability of data collected in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 376-390. "' Morris, D. P., Soroker, E., & Burrus, G. (1954). Follow-up studies of shy, withdrawn children, I: Evaluation of later adjustment. American Journal pf Orthopsychiatry, 24, 743-754. Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856-867. Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1984). A longitudinal study of the utility of social preference and social impact sociometric classification schemes. Child Development, 22, 1434-1447. Nowicki, 3., Jr., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal pf Consulting apd Clinical Psychology, 49, 148-154. O'Connor, R. (1969). Modification of social withdrawal through symbolic modeling. Journal g£.Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 15-22. Oden, S., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Coaching children in zgcizéssgiéls for friendship making. Child Development, , - O . 184 Piaget, J. (1952). The origins pf intelligence in children. New York: Internationa n versities. Pitcher, S. W., & Meikle, S. (1980). The topography of assertive behavior in positive and negative situations. Behavior Therapy, 11, 532-547. Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. M. (1981). Social skills and group acceptance. In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds.), The deve10pment of children's friendship_. New York: CambridgeUniverEity Press. “““ Richardson, D., Bernstein, S., & Taylor, S. (1979). The effect of situational contingencies on female retaliative behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo , 3_7: ZOM'ZW _ “" ““" “..-- -—-.—-——-g-Z Roberts, G. C., Kleiber, D. A., & Duda, J. L. (1981). An analysis of motivation in children's sport: The role of perceived competence in participation. Journal pf Sport Psychology, 3, 206-216. Roff, M., Sells, S. B., & Golden, M. M. (1972). Social adjustment and personality development in children. Minneapolis,MN:University ofiMinneapoTis‘Press. Rogosch, F. A. (1982). The differential influence of social reputation in the social development ofreigcted‘ind i§01ated‘Ehiidefi. UnpuElished masterrs EhesiET‘Miéfiigan SEEEE_Ufiiversity, East Lansing. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scri ts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: 1r aum. Schwartz, R. M., & Gottman, J. M. (1976). Toward a task analysis of assertive behavior. Journal pf Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 910-920. Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Selman, R. L., Jaquette, D., & Lavin, D. R. (1977). Interpersonal awareness in children: Toward an integration of developmental and clinical child psychology. American Journal pf Orthopsychiatry, 41, 264-274. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. ‘— Thompson, R. (1981). Children's self-evaluation of p335 relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO. 185 White, R. w. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333. Wood, R., & Michelson, L. (1978a). Assessment of assertive behavior 33 elementary school children. Paps? presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Chicago, IL. WOOd, R., & Michelson, L. (1978b). Children's assertive behavior scale. Unpublished manuscript, Nova University. Word, C. 0., Zanna, M. P., & COOper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prOphecies in interracial interaction. Journal pf Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109-120. Yule, W. (1981). Epidemiolog of child psychopathology. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds. , Advances in child-clinical psychology, Vol. 4. New York: Plenum Press. HICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRnRIEs lli"INIIWIIWIWWWWWW””IHIVIHHHI 31293010887589